In please.

In.

Also, I voted for clues mostly because I like looking for clues and I think Roy is good at 'em. I'll still want to play regardless.

He is "good at them" in the sense that they are rarely found; ie, there may as well not be clues.

I'll pull some things from the shoutbox to clarify my position, and leave it at that. I don't really have any desire to argue the point.

All clues accomplish is one person going "Aha, I think Roy meant X is Mafia when he said Y" and everyone bandwagoning X.

What is the benefit of clues? The point of the game is figuring out who the enemy faction consists of; it's a game of limited information and behavioral analysis, since its creation numerous decades ago. The idea of the host, the neutral hub whose purpose is to receive and process actions impartially, telling the players who is guilty (through subtle hints or otherwise) completely undermines the game.

It's like playing Guess Who and having a third-party watching the game and giving one guy hints. Who the fuck would think that's acceptable?

Regular Townies already have something to do; it's called figuring out who Mafia is. Searching through the host's text for hints about who is Mafia is not that way that is supposed to take place.

Players have plenty to say without clues, things that are actually relevant to the game. They vote for who they think is guilty, voice their suspicions, point out behavioral inconsistencies, etc. If the players aren't engaged enough, it has nothing to do with there not being clues; clues are not used anywhere outside of SEN and all Mafia games there function perfectly well. If anything, I would blame the use of clues for some of the lower Mafia-playing ability and inherent lazy/sheep behavior of players on SEN.

"Clues" have no logic involved, and they cannot be argued against. You can't refute clues, you can't argue against them, you can't disprove them, which is in stark contrast to what is actually supposed to incriminate players in Mafia: behavior. So when someone finds what seem to be good clues, everyone just bandwagons.

The host hinting to you who Mafia is, and basing who you kill on who you think the host was hinting at being Mafia, is 100% against the point of the game.

It's just sad that some people want this mechanic to be perpetuated, which offers no benefits, and not only detracts from the singular point of the game, and as a result reduces the quality of the game, but additionally reduces the quality of the playerbase as well.

It's like the SEN kids used training wheels too long while growing up, and now they're too frightened of falling to take them off.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Oct 21 2012, 5:01 am by Azrael.

ohi, I'll play !

Classic mafia <3

Azrael, I'd like to point out, being myself a fan of the 'simpler' mafias like this one, that you are a fan of the power-role-based mafias. When there is a majority 'normal townie' in the game, with no power but to dodge maybe, there is significantly less material for behavioral analysis. Compare this to the availability of analytic material in a game where every single townie has a power role. In these simpler games, essentially all we can see is the votes and personal out-of-forum discussions.

Clues provide the analysis material that is lacking when every townie does not have a power like the games you favor. The reality isn't that clues are bad, you just favor a different style of mafia play, which is perfectly fine.

If the host is incompetent, he can ruin the game using too obvious clues, or clues that are nearly impossible to solve, but there is still a wide margin of acceptability because all clues are subject to the interpretations of the players, and an argument that is in truth correct can still be argued down by a mafia taking a different perspective. In this sense the clues are very contributive to the game; they provide a reasonable basis for action, but a basis which is not immutable. Clue analysis adds an element of skill to playing a normal townie; if you can successfully filter and analyze the context and content of a clue you can be a valuable member of the mafia game, instead of just having a night hit or other power role.

There are no behavioral inconsistencies if no one has any powers that they can be inconsistent with. If you can't find inconsistencies, on what do you base your suspicions, and who you vote for?
I invite you to examine some of the older mafia games that you may have missed out on. If all you mean is that there is no absolute determination regarding clues until the game is over, well yeah, but it would be pretty stupid if there were. If the clues could absolutely say "X PERSON IS 100% MAFIA" then it would definitely be a detrimental game mechanic. However, the interpretations are left to the player, as long as the host doesn't validate an interpretation its solely a matter of which players believe which interpretation, which provides another avenue for behavioral analysis.

You employed some powerful rhetoric in making your points, but I think if you consider the differences in style of play between power-role-based mafia and normal-townie majority mafia, you will see that much of it does not apply. Just as you consider it asinine that for the past many mafia games I have opted to not play because "I don't like fun", its because I prefer this style of mafia play, majority-normal-townie, and the games were all power-role based (among other reasons like time considerations and stuff).

Besides, finding clues is fun

P.S. I will also play even if there aren't clues, but go clues!

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Oct 21 2012, 6:34 am by Vrael.

Clues = More opportunities for behavior analysis. Ha!

Anyway, basing the entire game off of behavior analysis is silly due to the fact that we are on the internet and any intellectual person on the internet should be able to act like however they want.

It is so silly how ya'll put credits in it.

In.

I'm in but i might be in the hospital since i might have influenza.

In.

Suggestion (dunno if you take those ): Limit the total number of hits a vigilante may have per game to 2 or 3.

You can see the discussion surrounding the voting process in the thread. It starts with one person going "Why are you voting for X?"

And in a game with clues, the Mafia will just quote a random line from the host and purposely misinterpret it, instead of having to give a valid reason.


You apparently don't know that "simple mafia" is played everywhere else on the internet and in real life, and no one uses clues of any variety, and the quality of those games and players tend to be much higher than here, even on random obscure sites similar to this one.

I already explained why this is, several times. There is no logic involved in clues. You say "I think the host is saying Y is guilty," other people say "Yeah it looks like that's who the host is telling us is guilty," and the victim (Mafia or otherwise) only has a single recourse: "The host didn't mean I was guilty." You can't defend your actions, because they aren't basing their lynch on your actions at all, they are basing it on something completely irrelevant to you. No one can add or contribute anything to this, since it's an interpretation of something the host did (who is the only person that could verify it either way), instead of being an interpretation of something another player did. This, again, takes away a large part of Mafia gameplay and strategy (for both sides), and does something completely contrary to the game's intention.

The reality is that clues are bad. They serve only to undermine the playing experience, which is meant to be based on interacting with other players, not by interacting with the host. In Mafia, you have no interactions with the host himself; the host's existence is merely a necessity for fair gameplay, a neutral party which receives each player's actions and then gives the results to everyone.

Every effect that clues have on gameplay is either negative or neutral. Players analyze what the host said, instead of analyzing what other players have said. There is no point at which it is acceptable for the game to be played by "figuring out who the host said is guilty" instead of by interacting with the other players.

Post has been edited 2 time(s), last time on Oct 21 2012, 4:14 pm by Azrael.

I think that's more advice the Vigilante should follow than a limitation I want to impose.

It's just out of respect. Like I credit Roy in mine for his "mods" version he hosted as an influence. I also redesigned the OP in my Mafia game and others have used my template and given credit to me for it. It's just a nice way to say thinks to people.

No, it starts with you pulling an argumentum ad nauseum, and the townsheeple follow you. I saw no action being taken due to behavioral analysis from most of the town for the last couple of games, because behavioral analysis tends to be pointless when someone is yelling to get another person lynched.

And this is not a legitimate strategy how? Both Townspeople and Mafia can use this to get whoever they want lynched. In a long day or night post, there's no way to tell what is a clue and what isn't, so long as the rhetoric is consistent and isn't deliberately written to have something stand out.

Raccoon tried to use the "speedy" references to get Kame lynched. No one follows through. This disproves your point that the existence of clues automatically means clue bandwagons happen.

Having clues gives players something to do. I see no good reason to omit it. Good clues are hard to find. The way I see it, the real reason why you are trying to hard to get clues removed is so that the only way people can lynch you is via behavioral analysis, at which point you will post so much tl;dr and call the other person scum so many times that the vast majority of the sheeple will eventually agree with you, saving your ass.

YESSSSSSSS TEMPZ IS PLAYING! We definitely need clues now!

Aristocrat, I'd suggest you play Mafia in any setting outside of SEN at least once in your life before commenting on something you're clearly uninformed about. I could destroy your entire post line-by-line simply by quoting things I've already said.

If you're not good/confident/intelligent enough to play Mafia without the host holding your hand and telling you who is guilty, you shouldn't be playing at all. When the host starts leaking information by giving hints, the game is no longer "Mafia".

No, you couldn't. You are simply asserting something without backing it up, the same way you get people lynched in every single game of mafia.

The host does not need to "leak" information. He could simply state there are clues, then not add any, or sprinkle a few of them through a large number of game posts so that there's no guarantee that any post contains at least 1 clue. The possibility of there being clues adds strategic depth and uncertainty to the game.

Yes, I could.

And it isn't "strategic depth", it actually makes the gameplay much shallower and arbitrary.

The only arguments which a player should be able to make for lynching someone are those directly resulting from other players.

I swear to god whoever the doctor is better save lotus first.

Weren't you the one who killed him first last game...?

Then do it, motherfucker.

EDIT> Can't do it? Thought so.


Join the kill Azrael coalition today!

Post has been edited 1 time(s), last time on Oct 21 2012, 5:56 pm by Aristocrat.