Something I've noticed that has been happening more frequently is players who like to come in when a player is at L-1, and hammer without intent before the player even has a chance to explain, to defend themselves, etc.
It's silly in my opinion. And it should be implied that someone who does that is autolynched the next day. However, I'm seeing more and more that people tend to say "Ah well that kind of stupidity CAN'T have come from scum, so lets keep him alive". So I feel like it's almost a way to make people town read you, when it really shouldn't be.
I'm considering making a mechanic in my next game which basically says that you have to state intent before hammering. If you try to hammer without it, your vote simply won't count. It'd be simple.
That might also be a good way to make LYLO less about whether scum can get online at the same time, and more about the game. Some people like that, though.
But do you guys think that would be to inhibitive of players to force that? Is LOLhammering just a part of the game that we should all live with? I don't know.
In post 0, Aeronaut wrote:"Ah well that kind of stupidity CAN'T have come from scum, so lets keep him alive".
Anyone who says this hasn't played a lot of games. You could just cite any of the plethora of examples of scum doing this.
Though looking at the context of things is probably important.
Also, I notice people allow certain players to get away with doing this. Players who do this should just be blacklisted. Or policy lynched. Until they learn to stop being awful at mafia.
In post 0, Aeronaut wrote:I'm considering making a mechanic in my next game which basically says that you have to state intent before hammering. If you try to hammer without it, your vote simply won't count. It'd be simple.
Mods trying to curb bad player behavior by adding rules isn't the solution in my opinion. Frustrating? Yes.
But its all part of the game. If no one holds them responsible, they will never be punished and this will continue etc.
"This is the true face of a man who plays paladin."
The idea that this sort of thing is possible is why L-1 is any pressure at all, especially depending on the player list.
Quickhammering as Town doesn't make you a bad player, but consistently quickhammering
Town
as Town makes you a bad player.
But then everyone's bad at this game in some way or another. The key is to identify where you screwed up (e.g. why you quickhammered given that you hit Town) and decide whether you should change your thought process.
Everything you say and do matters. People will respond in ways you may never see. May those responses be what you intend.
In post 0, Aeronaut wrote:I'm considering making a mechanic in my next game which basically says that you have to state intent before hammering. If you try to hammer without it, your vote simply won't count. It'd be simple.
What if you're a town PR who wants to quickhammer a scum PR who counterclaimed you while wanting to fake that it was accidental hammer?
"I used to think you had this elegant-trolly, minimalist playstyle. Then I realized the playstyle is ~Lazy~
The true enlightenment was realizing that they are the same thing."
~fferyllt
"who the fuck fakeclaims Tracker like that
WHO THE FUCK DOES THAT"
~Alisae
I've seen scum and town do this. The person being hammered is usually town but sometimes not.
I don't think there's a way to stop it. If someone has a consistent pattern of doing this as town and hitting town and shows no desire to change-don't play with that player.
There's not much you can add into a set-up to force this not to happen. Sometimes there is a strategic reason to do it as scum and rarely as town.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.
It would be interesting to see a mechanic that stops quickhammers from happening. Something like, the day ends if someone keeps a majority of votes on them for 24 hours. It would change several aspects of the game.
Aeronaut, mind if I test this out with a normal Micro game? Or would you rather have it in your game first?
In post 0, Aeronaut wrote:I'm considering making a mechanic in my next game which basically says that you have to state intent before hammering. If you try to hammer without it, your vote simply won't count. It'd be simple.
What if you're a town PR who wants to quickhammer a scum PR who counterclaimed you while wanting to fake that it was accidental hammer?
Well... I don't know
In post 9, Klick wrote:It would be interesting to see a mechanic that stops quickhammers from happening. Something like, the day ends if someone keeps a majority of votes on them for 24 hours. It would change several aspects of the game.
Aeronaut, mind if I test this out with a normal Micro game? Or would you rather have it in your game first?
Go for it!
In post 10, xRECKONERx wrote:This trend really has picked up recently. It's like the new site culture is to worship being fucking stupid and think it's
hilarious
to do dumb shit F4R TEH LULZ LMAO in a game people devote months of time into playing.
In post 10, xRECKONERx wrote:This trend really has picked up recently. It's like the new site culture is to worship being fucking stupid and think it's
hilarious
to do dumb shit F4R TEH LULZ LMAO in a game people devote months of time into playing.
Exactly, it's fucking frustrating, especially when you aren't ready to end the day yet, and someone thinks it's funny or a thing to do for the lulz-it's shit play, period.
Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.
It'd be funny if someone made 2 types of roles, one being the role to have the day phase last 4 days or the person dies. The other being the role that must have the lynch last till the last day or he dies.
In post 9, Klick wrote:It would be interesting to see a mechanic that stops quickhammers from happening. Something like, the day ends if someone keeps a majority of votes on them for 24 hours. It would change several aspects of the game.
This has come up before; I know GreyICE had a 24-hour grace period after a hammer for people to unvote in one of his Mini Themes, though the intention was to keep the scum from quickhammering in lylo if I recall correctly.
My take is that against scum quickhammering, it just slows down the game without changing anything.
For town quickhammering, if someone is impulsive and doing things for the lulz, no amount of rules are going to be able to change that.
In post 10, xRECKONERx wrote:This trend really has picked up recently. It's like the new site culture is to worship being fucking stupid and think it's
hilarious
to do dumb shit F4R TEH LULZ LMAO in a game people devote months of time into playing.
mafia seems to be on the rise (i've played mafia on like 4 different sites now, including mafiascum), but the particular flavor of mafia that i've seen doesn't mesh at all with the mafiascum culture
"SAULRES you are THE man! Fav mod eva, no contest!" - Bert; "Saulres is a fantastic mod, if he is running a game everyone needs to join it." - FuDuzn
Nominated for Paperback Writer Scummie 2013 and 2014!
On permanent
"SAULRES you are THE man! Fav mod eva, no contest!" - Bert; "Saulres is a fantastic mod, if he is running a game everyone needs to join it." - FuDuzn
Nominated for Paperback Writer Scummie 2013 and 2014!
On permanent
"i have the sickest grossest feeling that even if it's my lynch today, my townflip still won't lead to a tso lynch, and then he'll find some bullshit way to reason either shooting or lynching gm tomorrow because if there's anyone who can strongarm a mislynch despite his reads or cases being proved wrong time and again it's tso"
In post 9, Klick wrote:It would be interesting to see a mechanic that stops quickhammers from happening. Something like, the day ends if someone keeps a majority of votes on them for 24 hours. It would change several aspects of the game.
This has come up before; I know GreyICE had a 24-hour grace period after a hammer for people to unvote in one of his Mini Themes, though the intention was to keep the scum from quickhammering in lylo if I recall correctly.
I wanted to see how players would use it. In practice it worked miserably.
It turns out the nice thing about hammers is that the debate ends. With a 24 hour grace period someone on the wagon ALWAYS gets cold feet for the first few days, so it just stretches to deadline.
In post 10, xRECKONERx wrote:This trend really has picked up recently. It's like the new site culture is to worship being fucking stupid and think it's
hilarious
to do dumb shit F4R TEH LULZ LMAO in a game people devote months of time into playing.
I've noticed this hand-in-hand with a "cases are scummy" attitude that discourages lucid thought processes in favour of giving towncred to people who just post shit like "#202 is p town" or "[playername] is scum, VOTE: playername".
Sadly I haven't rolled scum recently, because I feel like I could get away with murder (literally) under this meta.
One's self-meta cannot be known without invalidating it.
In post 9, Klick wrote:It would be interesting to see a mechanic that stops quickhammers from happening. Something like, the day ends if someone keeps a majority of votes on them for 24 hours. It would change several aspects of the game.
This has come up before; I know GreyICE had a 24-hour grace period after a hammer for people to unvote in one of his Mini Themes, though the intention was to keep the scum from quickhammering in lylo if I recall correctly.
I wanted to see how players would use it. In practice it worked miserably.
It turns out the nice thing about hammers is that the debate ends. With a 24 hour grace period someone on the wagon ALWAYS gets cold feet for the first few days, so it just stretches to deadline.
That would just encourage people to stalk the thread and spam more.
I like the decisiveness of a hammer. It happened. The game moves on. Too many games hit deadline anyway. If people idiot cast the hammer vote, that's on them.