Mafiascum.net

I suggest doing what I do in Micros, and turning the prod frequency way up (while increasing the number of permitted prods before force-replacement to compensate, so that people who aren't lurking but who have connection problems or need to take a day off or the like don't end up being punished for it). A few experiments showed 32-hour prods to be a good value. (I've pretty much always had "you should aim to post almost every day" in my rules, and so if someone doesn't post for a day, prodding them makes sense. It needs to be more than 24 hours because people won't necessarily post at exactly the same time each day.)

Game is now running, early Day 2 still easy to pick up!

It needs a replacement, if you're interested PM me.

Man. Kids these days.

In post 551, TheButtonmen wrote:Game is now running, early Day 2 still easy to pick up!

It needs a replacement, if you're interested PM me.

Still open if anyone is interested!

In post 480, Mathdino wrote:i would argue then that the geriatric ruleset is pro-town if and only if the playerlist is normally active

i think the ruleset was definitely helpful to town in Aeronaut's game, since there was less material to get overwhelmed by, but all players were still producing genuine content to the point where it was easy to get reads

it is not, however, helpful if used as an excuse to only post once every 2 days

and i think geriatric games have the unfortunate potential to draw a crowd of lurkers or people who just don't have time to play mafia

Reviving this due to Reck's game which had town completely steamrolled.

Geriatric is scum sided

You need engagement to win games

Geriatric allows me to engage rather than constantly be catching up

In post 556, Kmd4390 wrote:Geriatric allows me to engage rather than constantly be catching up

Apparently not

Huh?

The difference, Kmd, is that you're clearly more invested in mafia than I think the majority of people who require the geriatric ruleset to play.

You're also much MUCH more in sync with the current meta.

I stand by the idea that a random MS game, if suddenly imbued with the geriatric ruleset, would shift things for town.

But as it is, a random geriatric game that enters signups is much more likely to create a playerlist that will lose the game for town.

In post 554, Mathdino wrote:

In post 480, Mathdino wrote:i would argue then that the geriatric ruleset is pro-town if and only if the playerlist is normally active

i think the ruleset was definitely helpful to town in Aeronaut's game, since there was less material to get overwhelmed by, but all players were still producing genuine content to the point where it was easy to get reads

it is not, however, helpful if used as an excuse to only post once every 2 days

and i think geriatric games have the unfortunate potential to draw a crowd of lurkers or people who just don't have time to play mafia

Reviving this due to Reck's game which had town completely steamrolled.

Sample size = 1

Time for conclusions!

I'm reviving this every time geriatrics complete, KK. I'm invested in the ruleset and have been following all geriatric games onsite. Don't give me that.

The other geriatric town loss was also ruined by lurkers.

The only geriatric game with a town win contained an entire playerlist of standardly active people anyway, who were first to not spampost and get in massive 1v1s due to the ruleset.

So sample size is three.

Time for conclusions!

Okay, so instead of tearing shit down, what's your take?

In post 563, Mathdino wrote:Okay, so instead of tearing shit down, what's your take?

New metas have to emerge to deal with the new ruleset. It takes time.

Those who were scum correctly learned to target active players. When they are town next, they will not be passive.

People that are inactive and refuse to change should be blacklisted.

These things take time. Longer than 3 games.

Micro 778: Geriatric Grey Flag Nightless - Town Loss/Mafia Victory

Mirco 765: Chill Mafia - Town Victory/Mafia Loss

Just Play the Hits - Town Loss/Serial Killer Loss/Mafia Victory

In post 531, Mulch wrote:Alternative option: Make activity requirements harsher and blacklist lurkers

Welp!

I'm going on a lot of blacklists then...


Also, shouldn't most of this be in a Geriatric Discussion thread?
Like, if we've stopped caring then cool. Just asking

In post 566, Aristophanes wrote:

In post 531, Mulch wrote:Alternative option: Make activity requirements harsher and blacklist lurkers

Welp!

I'm going on a lot of blacklists then...


Also, shouldn't most of this be in a Geriatric Discussion thread?
Like, if we've stopped caring then cool. Just asking

No, not people like you lol

People that habitually flake out of games/0 post all game

the issue seems to be people signing up for geriatric games who have no intention of staying active

i think geriatric games naturally draw those types of players

Maybe at the start, those players are joining because they're busy but think that they would be able to handle a geriatric game. Hopefully over time and after more geriatric games are run, they will be able to understand their limits and only sign up if they actually do have enough time to play.

In post 568, xRECKONERx wrote:the issue seems to be people signing up for geriatric games who have no intention of staying active

Do you realize the irony of this

The very POINT of this is to create a haven for people that aren't active and can now lurk without consequences or repercussions.

(right)

If it's not, if you look at it pragmatically that's gonna be the result

Unless you have the PERFECT playerlist of people that don't post a lot, but are extremely active

I would say the problem of lurking is exacerbated by the ruleset.

i do think the 72 hour deadline in your game made it really slow in terms of getting the necessary replacements, reck

D1 came down to the deadline; it didn't end organically because 2/3 of the day was spent waiting on lurkers

I think that people need to stop signing up for geriatric games with barely any time thinking that it being geriatric makes it fine to hard lurk.

Geriatric shouldnt mean lurker but in practice it had to a significant extent

In post 571, Mulch wrote:

In post 568, xRECKONERx wrote:the issue seems to be people signing up for geriatric games who have no intention of staying active

Do you realize the irony of this

The very POINT of this is to create a haven for people that aren't active and can now lurk without consequences or repercussions.

(right)

If it's not, if you look at it pragmatically that's gonna be the result

Unless you have the PERFECT playerlist of people that don't post a lot, but are extremely active

I would say the problem of lurking is exacerbated by the ruleset.

True. Non-geriatric games don't have the lurker/flaker problem.