Mafiascum.net

Statistics specifically

Wtf does 94 mean

In post 101, Mulch wrote:Wtf does 94 mean

Someone tell me am I an idiot or is this completely, utterly incomprehensible?

basically a bunch of ranting raving and bitching about hero vigs, which I feel is kinda dumb since vig has about the power of a cop, you can confirm town or scum motive from someone, you can eliminate concern about problem slots (lurkers, constant replacements or dead slots), and tandem with that eliminate players who are possibly town but will always stand in the way of town cohesion.

Making everyone have a percentage chance gun wouldent lower the % of hero shots or increase the percentage of shots on disruly players... Having no confirmability has nothing to do with that

In post 103, Gamma Emerald wrote:basically a bunch of ranting raving and bitching about hero vigs, which I feel is kinda dumb since vig has about the power of a cop, you can confirm town or scum motive from someone, you can eliminate concern about problem slots (lurkers, constant replacements or dead slots), and tandem with that eliminate players who are possibly town but will always stand in the way of town cohesion.

no its not ranting about hero vigs.
Vigs were the solution to a problem.
Biasing the setup away from hero vig shots and towards house cleaning shots was an attempt to get them to solve the problem they were put in the setup for.

Encouraging town people to play in such a way so to avoid getting shot by town night 1. ('taking out the garbage')

In post 103, Gamma Emerald wrote:you can eliminate concern about problem slots (lurkers, constant replacements or dead slots),

so as you think its dumb youd run some other setup.

yes but the possibility of getting cop checked n1, doesn't as significantly discourage

problem slots (lurkers, constant replacements or dead slots)

Your mileage may vary.
Apparently it does as you think thats dumb.

In post 104, Mulch wrote:Making everyone have a percentage chance gun wouldent lower the % of hero shots or increase the percentage of shots on disruly players... Having no confirmability has nothing to do with that

FYI there was exactly one or two guns(with bullets) (depending on how many shots the mods design wanted) in the hands of town.

The non claimability, is to lessen people being able to put themselves in confirmed town status which can tend to recreate the same problem that the shot was put in to kill.
My experience is people with real or near mod confirmed town status play differently. And they are different in way I was trying to design a setup to reduce.

The design goal was to be able to get to a game that played a lot like mountainous, but was bit more town favored than that.

In post 101, Mulch wrote:Wtf does 94 mean

FYI: you can explain WTF this means anytime you like.

does your post also indicate you understood no part of the post: or was it just the bits discussed so far.

asking for an explanation of the whole post seems tall as an order.

I think this conversation belongs in another thread.

Anyway, here's a list of people who have indicated an interest in a geriatric game in this thread (I will scan the original hyperposting thread for more names later, possibly):

• RayFrost
  
• chamber
  
• wgeurts
  
• Grendel
  
• hitogoroshi
  
• Sunlit Diamond
  
• SpyreX (?)
  
• Aristophanes (?)
  
• Papa Zito
  
• Thestatusquo
  
• AxleGreaser
  
• Human Sequencer

If I include myself, that is 12 players. I am sending a group PM to confirm everyone's interest and availability. Anyone who is interested but wasn't included in this list is welcome to post /in in this thread - if we get more than a Mini's worth of players, we can split them up into two Micros. If that's the case, I will be happy to mod the one I'm not playing in.

Korts I would love to help with Modding

you missed me there buddy-o

In post 109, Human Sequencer wrote:you missed me there buddy-o

Fixed, thanks. I'll skip the confirmation PM for you, since you just posted here.

In post 108, Alisae wrote:Korts I would love to help with Modding

Thanks, noted. I'm hoping to create a unified Geriatric ruleset that defines posting frequency and such - I will post a first draft soon.

/in

I'm curious what you mean by post restrictions. If it's just along the lines of "no hyperposting" that's fine, if it's similar to what tsq posted in that other thread then that's a different animal.

Thanks for the PM.

/in

In post 105, AxleGreaser wrote:

In post 103, Gamma Emerald wrote:basically a bunch of ranting raving and bitching about hero vigs, which I feel is kinda dumb since vig has about the power of a cop, you can confirm town or scum motive from someone, you can eliminate concern about problem slots (lurkers, constant replacements or dead slots), and tandem with that eliminate players who are possibly town but will always stand in the way of town cohesion.

no its not ranting about hero vigs.
Vigs were the solution to a problem.
Biasing the setup away from hero vig shots and towards house cleaning shots was an attempt to get them to solve the problem they were put in the setup for.

Encouraging town people to play in such a way so to avoid getting shot by town night 1. ('taking out the garbage')

In post 103, Gamma Emerald wrote:you can eliminate concern about problem slots (lurkers, constant replacements or dead slots),

so as you think its dumb youd run some other setup.

yes but the possibility of getting cop checked n1, doesn't as significantly discourage

problem slots (lurkers, constant replacements or dead slots)

Your mileage may vary.
Apparently it does as you think thats dumb.

Apparently you're talking about randomly distributed vigs which were a thing when I might ask? I've seen no mention of these in the site history. Also how does that in any way imply I think vigs are ""dumb""?

In post 113, Papa Zito wrote:I'm curious what you mean by post restrictions. If it's just along the lines of "no hyperposting" that's fine, if it's similar to what tsq posted in that other thread then that's a different animal.

My initial thought is something like 50 posts per day during the first week of Day 1, and 25 posts per day after that. Not sure about enforcement yet - immediate force replacement is probably harsh, but three strikes before replacement, maybe?

Are you referring to the ratio of every 50 posts for 1 rl day?

Because if so that seems really lenient and okay.

I would probably just end up saying fuck up one or two times fine, fuck up 3 times then you take 1 less vote to lynch for each time you fuck up (this would go away at the end of the game day)

If you think that's lenient, that tells me I should be stricter maybe?

As for punishment, I'm not sure I really want in-game consequences, because that would punish the entire faction and/or mess with the balance.

In post 116, Korts wrote:

In post 113, Papa Zito wrote:I'm curious what you mean by post restrictions. If it's just along the lines of "no hyperposting" that's fine, if it's similar to what tsq posted in that other thread then that's a different animal.

My initial thought is something like 50 posts per day during the first week of Day 1, and 25 posts per day after that. Not sure about enforcement yet - immediate force replacement is probably harsh, but three strikes before replacement, maybe?

Do you think the issue is post per day or is it consecutive posts? A player making 50 posts on a long Day 1 doesn't necessarily seem egregious to me.

I agree, though I think there is a component of it that is volume in general.

One of the rules I put into my ruleset for my mini theme designed to enforce reasonable posting is that at the end of the day you can't have an especially higher or lower post count than the other players in the game. Maybe you could make some sort of sliding scale rule, where you can't post if you have x more posts than more than y players in the game.

In post 120, Thestatusquo wrote:One of the rules I put into my ruleset for my mini theme designed to enforce reasonable posting is that at the end of the day you can't have an especially higher or lower post count than the other players in the game. Maybe you could make some sort of sliding scale rule, where you can't post if you have x more posts than more than y players in the game.

Find the average amount of posts per living player and give a 30 plus or minus range.

I say minus so one player who posts like once every day or so doesn't bog down the system.

In post 118, Korts wrote:If you think that's lenient, that tells me I should be stricter maybe?

As for punishment, I'm not sure I really want in-game consequences, because that would punish the entire faction and/or mess with the balance.

I think its better as just a gentlewoman's agreement than anything else, tbh. If someone accidentally slips up and posts too much it shouldn't take more than a quick "hey, post less" to sort it out unless they were being disingenuous about signing up.

I think that 50 posts per real day is too many by like almost a factor of ten.

Checking RC's currently running post-restricted game, the cap is actually on posts per game day - 100 for D1, 50 for D2 onwards (and up to 20 posts can be carried over). With a 14d D1 deadline and a 10d for the rest, that amounts to 7 posts per day for D1 and 5 for the rest.

I would prefer to limit according to RL days, going by my own experience of waking up each morning and counting the number of pages I have to catch up with. The 25 per day per player general limit is built on the idea that no single player will be able to post more than a page worth of posts. That limit is raised to 50 for the first RL week of D1 to facilitate the early game development.

So going by RC's numbers, I would probably say 10 posts per day for the first week, then 5 per day. And to have some leeway, everyone has a reserve of 20 posts for the entire game, and any posts above the daily limit are deducted from that.

Hm?

In post 119, Papa Zito wrote:

In post 116, Korts wrote:

In post 113, Papa Zito wrote:I'm curious what you mean by post restrictions. If it's just along the lines of "no hyperposting" that's fine, if it's similar to what tsq posted in that other thread then that's a different animal.

My initial thought is something like 50 posts per day during the first week of Day 1, and 25 posts per day after that. Not sure about enforcement yet - immediate force replacement is probably harsh, but three strikes before replacement, maybe?

Do you think the issue is post per day or is it consecutive posts? A player making 50 posts on a long Day 1 doesn't necessarily seem egregious to me.

Actually I misread this, I thought you meant 50 posts in a single game day, not real life day.

Enforcement is a little weird. Imagine being wagonned and you suddenly can't defend yourself because you're out of posts.