I feel like quite a few games lately have been changed by tactical subouts by town slots. Nancy Drew v Titus was a particularly egregious example. It goes like this
1) Town player gets run up
2) Town player gets toxic
3) More votes pile on
4) Town player subs out
Two and 3 can occur simultaneously.
The slot then avoids elimination and instead becomes townfirmed to the rest of the game. This was particularly obvious in Titus v Nancy Drew because I, as a scum stump, would never approve toxicity or subouts in that manner.
What can we do to fix this problem without breaking games for one side or the other?
What makes you think it's tactical? Sometimes people replace out when they aren't enjoying the game anymore.
It's always the same. When you fire that first shot, no matter how right you feel, you have no idea who's going to die. You don't know whose children are going to scream and burn. How many hearts will be broken. How many lives shattered. How much blood will spill, until everybody does what they're always going to have to do from the very beginning... SIT DOWN AND TALK!
In post 1, Something_Smart wrote:What makes you think it's tactical? Sometimes people replace out when they aren't enjoying the game anymore.
While that's true, it's a bit of a thin line between "not enjoying" and tactical replacements. In particular, people tend to not enjoy the game when things aren't going their way. In either case, it still has a rather significant impact on the game.
Links: User Page | GTKAS
Do you have questions, ideas, or feedback for the Scummies? Please pm me!
Hosting: The Grand Neighborhood [In Signups: 8/9 ONE MORE!]
I think replacements should be exclusively for when people literally can't play the game, rather than not feeling like it. The problem is it's easy to just lie about that. I think there should be a flat mafia suspension attached to all replacements, e.g. if you replace out, you can't join mafia games for 2 weeks (with ramping duration for repeated, with a reset after x games without replace outs)
I think that the problem is not people replacing out in order to gain an advantage; it is people incidentally gaining an advantage due to replacing out for other (presumably not good) reasons.
There's not really a way to address this short of banning replace-outs for emotional/mental health reasons.
I think I'm with samantha that replace-outs should be punished more harshly than they are, but I'm not really a good judge of it because I've literally never replaced out except when I thought my slot was compromised.
It's always the same. When you fire that first shot, no matter how right you feel, you have no idea who's going to die. You don't know whose children are going to scream and burn. How many hearts will be broken. How many lives shattered. How much blood will spill, until everybody does what they're always going to have to do from the very beginning... SIT DOWN AND TALK!
In post 6, Something_Smart wrote:There's not really a way to address this short of banning replace-outs for emotional/mental health reasons.
This would be bad imo.
There needs to be some nuance, but also an observation of repeated behaviour. Yes, all rep outs kinda suck. Yes, some are unjustified. If there are people who are regularly dropping out of games for no/v weak reasons then those people need to be banned from joining new games for a while.
It's a hard problem. If someone has decided they're not going to play a game any more you can't force them to do it. I agree with Menalque the only real thing that can be done (and has been done before) is having penalties such as tempbans from joining games, for players who replace out too much.
“There are two kinds of people in this world: those who say, ‘There are two kinds of people in this world: those who say there are two kinds of people in this world,
In post 3, samantha97 wrote:I think replacements should be exclusively for when people literally can't play the game, rather than not feeling like it. The problem is it's easy to just lie about that. I think there should be a flat mafia suspension attached to all replacements, e.g. if you replace out, you can't join mafia games for 2 weeks (with ramping duration for repeated, with a reset after x games without replace outs)
I'm not arguing that this would be a bad idea, I'm arguing that 2 weeks is a bit (way) too long to ban someone from joining new mafia games because of replacing out, seeing as if you were in multiple games and you needed to replace out of one game, the odds are that you'll need to replace out of all/most games since the reason behind replacing out of one game usually affects other games as well (too little time to commit, stressed out, health issues, etc.), which makes it that much harder to join any new mafia games as someone who doesn't abuse the system, while it doesn't punish those who would do the so-called tactical sub-out who are also in other games.
In post 3, samantha97 wrote:I think replacements should be exclusively for when people literally can't play the game, rather than not feeling like it. The problem is it's easy to just lie about that. I think there should be a flat mafia suspension attached to all replacements, e.g. if you replace out, you can't join mafia games for 2 weeks (with ramping duration for repeated, with a reset after x games without replace outs)
You can’t force people to not replace out, it’s hard enough to fill games as it is.
That said, any player with a history of making questionable/tactical seeming replace outs, should definitely face consequences for that.
I think flaking should be punished more harshly because it’s just irresponsible and disrespectful to do that unless you have actual rl/internet based reasons for doing that.
In post 1, Something_Smart wrote:What makes you think it's tactical? Sometimes people replace out when they aren't enjoying the game anymore.
Said player not only violated the no publicly replacing out rule but very clearly spewed his alignment immediately after that, so yeah, I’d definitely consider that to be “tactical”.
***
We just need to tread carefully because if you slip up around her as scum she notices and will tear your spine out and slap you to death with it. (I'm slightly scared of Nancy)
~the worst
*******
Nancy is pretty heavenly ngl
~CheekyTeeky
*******
Nancy-scum feels like a hot knife slicing through butter. Nancy-town feels like a magnifying glass in the sun glaring down at an insect.
In post 0, Titus wrote:1) Town player gets run up
2) Town player gets toxic
3) More votes pile on
4) Town player subs out
What can we do to fix this problem without breaking games for one side or the other?
get town to be better
Of all tyrannies,a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
In post 14, Gamma Emerald wrote:Sometimes you literally cannot stomach being in a game, I think in those cases you’re well within your right to replace out.
+1
I don’t think it’s either fair or cool to shame anyone for doing what’s right for their mental health.
***
We just need to tread carefully because if you slip up around her as scum she notices and will tear your spine out and slap you to death with it. (I'm slightly scared of Nancy)
~the worst
*******
Nancy is pretty heavenly ngl
~CheekyTeeky
*******
Nancy-scum feels like a hot knife slicing through butter. Nancy-town feels like a magnifying glass in the sun glaring down at an insect.