-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Game of Thrones Mafia - We're All Bastards Here
- Thread starter Natiko
- Start date
While I agree that Modkilling in the context of people replacing out when there are no replacements available should be 'neutral' in regards to the game it's very difficult not to be.
For Trigger action should have been taken sooner but Natiko was following what our rules are in that people get 1 warning for being under 10 and then the next time it happens they get kicked out. Trigger replacing into an already inactive Role just made that problem exponentially worse. Should Trigger have just been Modkilled at that point? Probably, but we have the benefit of hindsight now and we didn't then.
With Include she was active up until she had to drop out for personal reasons. While she was also a late-game change it had to be taken into account that she was 1 of 2 living Scum players towards the end game. It's being argued that Modkilling/Replacing is the same but when it comes to Scum that is inherently untrue. Modkilling Include's role at that point would have heavily skewed the game and I still feel replacing in that instance was the better option.
I'm not really 'against' Modkills, I just find them hard to deliver in certain circumstances. But with the lessons learned here and how everything played out I'm planning to suggest that we play much stricter on punishments for being overly hostile during games.
We have had this issue before a few years back. I even remember having this same debate back then too and we all agreed to play it tougher on punishments. Thing is, with these instances being so rare I'm now seeing that we all rally for it now but with time we grow lax on them and then when it pops up again we're back to where we were before. I can only recall this type of situation happening twice (once in the past, once here) and I'm starting to see the connection.
Thinking I might add in a specific rule for hostility and punishment to make it more 'permanent' in that sense instead of all the talk now and no action later. Gonna mull it over though, I really do not want to see this happen again.
Been thinking this over myself too. I don't really know if there is a 'good' solution to this to be honest, though I'm open to suggestions.
I know we typically try to announce replacements as soon as we can so Players know why a person is unresponsive in-game. However, we can really only do that if we know ahead of time a Player is going to be dropping out/leaving. When it comes to last minute replacements is when things get tough because they can be anything from Players on the chopping block to last-minute replacements (like yourself) playing a bit and then getting killed immediately.
I don't know if having a set time/place to announcement a Replacement would solve that, think it would create more problems.
Did Trigger respond to his warning? Maybe I'm just wrong but I always thought that if the warning doesn't get a response then the replacement/modkill happens, rather than wait an extra phase.
If that's not the case maybe it should be?
There isn't really a "fair" option anyway. Scum are disadvantaged by a modkill and town are disadvantaged by a replacement. There's not much chance for a town to lynch an inactive slot that gets replaced with a talkative vaguely townie player late game. Ok in this game Include wasn't totally inactive, but that slot dropped way down the lynch order as soon as Nicole subbed in (don't mean to diminish her performance here, she did what was needed for the win).
If that's not the case maybe it should be?
Also this.
There isn't really a "fair" option anyway. Scum are disadvantaged by a modkill and town are disadvantaged by a replacement. There's not much chance for a town to lynch an inactive slot that gets replaced with a talkative vaguely townie player late game. Ok in this game Include wasn't totally inactive, but that slot dropped way down the lynch order as soon as Nicole subbed in (don't mean to diminish her performance here, she did what was needed for the win).
OP
OP
Sawneeks What would a rule on that look like? How does one define hostility? Insults? Aggression? How much aggression is too aggressive? Not to dredge up specifics, but that was part of the difficulty with administering punishment in this game. It's very nebulous.
As for the second part though there's a big difference in how it functionally can be responded to. If you modkill scum that's that. It is absolute. They cannot do anything about it. If you replace a player then they can be lynched. There is still action that can be taken. I'm all for coming up with better rules around players subbing in to try and prevent the issues that arose with Trigger's slot, but I still think it's far too hand-holdy to institute a modkill all late game players dropping rule just because town is too scared to lynch them. That's a meta issue, not a rules issue.
I'm in favor of tightening the rules for a subbing in player to ensure it's less likely a slot can be MIA so long, and in situations like season open with multiple games perhaps we need to not try and force them to start concurrently. Our replacement list was in a rough spot very early on as the games ran. If the list is padded out more then you can be more aggressive in how you respond to situations without torpedoing the game itself.
I do not know as it was Bae that pinged him, it occurred when I was on a work trip.
As for the second part though there's a big difference in how it functionally can be responded to. If you modkill scum that's that. It is absolute. They cannot do anything about it. If you replace a player then they can be lynched. There is still action that can be taken. I'm all for coming up with better rules around players subbing in to try and prevent the issues that arose with Trigger's slot, but I still think it's far too hand-holdy to institute a modkill all late game players dropping rule just because town is too scared to lynch them. That's a meta issue, not a rules issue.
I'm in favor of tightening the rules for a subbing in player to ensure it's less likely a slot can be MIA so long, and in situations like season open with multiple games perhaps we need to not try and force them to start concurrently. Our replacement list was in a rough spot very early on as the games ran. If the list is padded out more then you can be more aggressive in how you respond to situations without torpedoing the game itself.
OP
OP
There have been two or three instances of it. It's not the norm, but sometimes community members are kind and offer to do stuff like that. Typically it will be announced by the game runners if that's the case.
Huh.
Well, I don't play this to get games anyway, so I'm not going to play well just to get that.
Thanks so much again, I really appreciate it!
Also, not sure when, but I'm definitely planning to return the favor to the community and offer a similar prize to someone in a future game.
And I'm loving DQ XI so far, just for the record. :)
