Mafiascum.net

In post 913, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:

In post 908, beeboy wrote:

In post 905, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:I might run this game myself but allow the pairs to actually choose each other before randing the alignments because how much you enjoy this game often depends on whom you get as a partner.

I'd prein to this or eventually steal your idea because this sounds amazing.

Could I run this as my first virgin game as a mod? If so, I could run it now.

I’ve played this game twice on MU.. Had an awesome partner first game and loved it. The second time I played, literally got 3 partners from hell and hated it.

You need 1 game of modding experience in the open/normal queue to run a "themed"/micro game. Experience off site counts towards this number but you have to ask the list mod if your experience counts.

In post 924, Doctor Drew wrote:We already moved on from you, the only bear you can poke is yourself......since I am sure no one else would poke it.

funny how you move on but you keep talking about me with your random nonsense

In post 910, beeboy wrote:

In post 907, HoldenGolden wrote:

In post 906, HoldenGolden wrote:Why not have a day 0 phase where one person is elected to choose who gets paired?

This would be something players during the day 0 phase vote for

This would be FakeGods dance setup with a few more steps and the day 0 phase is my least favorite part of that setup.
Ends up being townie people being shoved together then tin foiling each other.

I always found the best pairs to be the ones made in the pregame.

+1

Yes, my way is based more on partner compatibility. If people choose their partners pre-game, they can’t complain about that being a reason they didn’t enjoy the game. In FG’s dance game, you choose based only on availability, where as in my way, the only players who would need to do that are only the ones not yet paired up. So, you ideally pre-in with a partner. Any players left would have to choose from the list. Doing it pre-game also doesn’t unfairly influence the game as it would in a 0 phase where everyone has already been given an alignment.

In post 912, HoldenGolden wrote:Hectic I'm sad you left me and brought up Alexander the Great in the process.

You brought up some valid points about Alexander tbh. I should've called in my boy Augustus instead.

In post 922, Tuxedo Mask wrote:I'm down to try any set up of this again. Though the day zero thing sounds like a bit of drag. No offense Holden, I just think you're dumb and I hate you and your day 0 idea.

No offense taken lol

I only threw it out because I saw it in an offsite game called prison mafia. I know nothing of balance games

Pedit: yeah I see the reason now. I think it could also be cool as well that way since players know in advance who exactly they are bringing with them which leads to a cool metagaming dynamic

In post 928, Hectic wrote:

In post 912, HoldenGolden wrote:Hectic I'm sad you left me and brought up Alexander the Great in the process.

You brought up some valid points about Alexander tbh. I should've called in my boy Augustus instead.

Augustus is better, but if we are doing roman leaders we can just go with OG ceasar. Dude built a wall to siege a city just to go on and build a second wall to defend against reinforcements. Fucking big brain.

In post 925, beeboy wrote:

In post 913, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:

In post 908, beeboy wrote:

In post 905, Nancy Drew 39 wrote:I might run this game myself but allow the pairs to actually choose each other before randing the alignments because how much you enjoy this game often depends on whom you get as a partner.

I'd prein to this or eventually steal your idea because this sounds amazing.

Could I run this as my first virgin game as a mod? If so, I could run it now.

I’ve played this game twice on MU.. Had an awesome partner first game and loved it. The second time I played, literally got 3 partners from hell and hated it.

You need 1 game of modding experience in the open/normal queue to run a "themed"/micro game. Experience off site counts towards this number but you have to ask the list mod if your experience counts.

I have only previously backup modded but this isn’t a themed game, I just wondered if my fix would make that ineligible as a vigin game? I suppose I should ask Micc.

In post 930, HoldenGolden wrote:

In post 928, Hectic wrote:

In post 912, HoldenGolden wrote:Hectic I'm sad you left me and brought up Alexander the Great in the process.

You brought up some valid points about Alexander tbh. I should've called in my boy Augustus instead.

Augustus is better, but if we are doing roman leaders we can just go with OG ceasar. Dude built a wall to siege a city just to go on and build a second wall to defend against reinforcements. Fucking big brain.

Not Roman, but Roman adjacent. I'm always a big fan of Hannibal, even if he did kill himself in exile as a complete failure.

In post 932, Tuxedo Mask wrote:

In post 930, HoldenGolden wrote:

In post 928, Hectic wrote:

In post 912, HoldenGolden wrote:Hectic I'm sad you left me and brought up Alexander the Great in the process.

You brought up some valid points about Alexander tbh. I should've called in my boy Augustus instead.

Augustus is better, but if we are doing roman leaders we can just go with OG ceasar. Dude built a wall to siege a city just to go on and build a second wall to defend against reinforcements. Fucking big brain.

Not Roman, but Roman adjacent. I'm always a big fan of Hannibal, even if he did kill himself in exile as a complete failure.

Hannibal had some good successes with the poster child being the battle of cannae. There was a reason after all he was close to laying siege to Rome after all. However, as great as a battle tactician he was, logistically his campaign was a nightmare that left Carthage exposed to counter attack by scorpio which they took. Then he fucking lost to scorpio with the same trick he pulled at cannae like a fucking loser.

Points do go to keeping manpower up. His campaign at that point was heavily fueled by mercenaries which was hard to find in mainland Rome as opposed to modern day Spain iirc.

And let's not talk about King Leonidas. Motherfucker just camped in a choke point with elite infantry and other random folk until the admins came and teleported the Persians behind them.

(Although Meet the Spartans? Good shit right there.)

In post 933, HoldenGolden wrote:

In post 932, Tuxedo Mask wrote:

In post 930, HoldenGolden wrote:

In post 928, Hectic wrote:

In post 912, HoldenGolden wrote:Hectic I'm sad you left me and brought up Alexander the Great in the process.

You brought up some valid points about Alexander tbh. I should've called in my boy Augustus instead.

Augustus is better, but if we are doing roman leaders we can just go with OG ceasar. Dude built a wall to siege a city just to go on and build a second wall to defend against reinforcements. Fucking big brain.

Not Roman, but Roman adjacent. I'm always a big fan of Hannibal, even if he did kill himself in exile as a complete failure.

Hannibal had some good successes with the poster child being the battle of cannae. There was a reason after all he was close to laying siege to Rome after all. However, as great as a battle tactician he was, logistically his campaign was a nightmare that left Carthage exposed to counter attack by scorpio which they took. Then he fucking lost to scorpio with the same trick he pulled at cannae like a fucking loser.

Points do go to keeping manpower up. His campaign at that point was heavily fueled by mercenaries which was hard to find in mainland Rome as opposed to modern day Spain iirc.

Yeah, but the Carthaginians were basically setting up Hannibal to fail. Making backroom deals, not giving him the support he needed, and also just losing every battle Hannibal wasn't there for.

P:edit I took classes on historical warfare while at clown college, so if you wanna talk Leonidas and bad comedy films (fight me) I am your man. Don't get me started on how the entire history of greek warfare is them barely winning by luck and then going "well since we won, clearly nothing has to change." and then getting stomped immediately after.

In post 935, Tuxedo Mask wrote:

In post 933, HoldenGolden wrote:

In post 932, Tuxedo Mask wrote:

In post 930, HoldenGolden wrote:

In post 928, Hectic wrote:

In post 912, HoldenGolden wrote:Hectic I'm sad you left me and brought up Alexander the Great in the process.

You brought up some valid points about Alexander tbh. I should've called in my boy Augustus instead.

Augustus is better, but if we are doing roman leaders we can just go with OG ceasar. Dude built a wall to siege a city just to go on and build a second wall to defend against reinforcements. Fucking big brain.

Not Roman, but Roman adjacent. I'm always a big fan of Hannibal, even if he did kill himself in exile as a complete failure.

Hannibal had some good successes with the poster child being the battle of cannae. There was a reason after all he was close to laying siege to Rome after all. However, as great as a battle tactician he was, logistically his campaign was a nightmare that left Carthage exposed to counter attack by scorpio which they took. Then he fucking lost to scorpio with the same trick he pulled at cannae like a fucking loser.

Points do go to keeping manpower up. His campaign at that point was heavily fueled by mercenaries which was hard to find in mainland Rome as opposed to modern day Spain iirc.

Yeah, but the Carthaginians were basically setting up Hannibal to fail. Making backroom deals, not giving him the support he needed, and also just losing every battle Hannibal wasn't there for.

P:edit I took classes on historical warfare while at clown college, so if you wanna talk Leonidas and bad comedy films (fight me) I am your man. Don't get me started on how the entire history of greek warfare is them barely winning by luck and then going "well since we won, clearly nothing has to change." and then getting stomped immediately after.

Sadly that is true. I always wondered if his lost to scorpio was fueled by animosity held towards the Carthaginians. If I remember too, his troops at the battle of Zama (i think that's the proper name) was heavily untrained set apart for some skilled infantry.

Ooo lucky. I always wanted to take one, but It would screw up my major/minors. Taking Latin though right now, so interesting to learn Roman culture in regards to war.

(Meet the Spartans is meant to be bad to the point its Good)

Yeah the Spartans imo were overrated. Their tactics at times were questionable, and their failure to innovate or fucking invest in a half decent navy to counter let say Athens was a folly.

Speaking of folly. Have you ever read The March of Folly?

In post 855, Tuxedo Mask wrote:Everyone was wrong, that's why we lost Bear.

i wasnt wrogn!

In post 896, Genghis Khan wrote:Drew, you were painfully obvtown to me; it's unbelievable how they treat our good cult leaders nowadays... just not right, I'm telling you. Thanks, Nancy, I thought that scumslip actually had good grounds! I like your new avatar.

Sorry about replacing out btw, was (and still am) overwhelmed with games.

im still not sure how much of a scumslip that was, but it was a good catch i guess.

In post 898, Genghis Khan wrote:Anyways, well played to the scumteam. You both played well. You need to stop winning scum games against me, votato...

you're hoctac?

also is hoctac=hectic?

In post 940, votato wrote:also is hoctac=hectic?

I process such knowledge, but I only give it out if you pay the Eldritch blood pact.

In post 941, HoldenGolden wrote:

In post 940, votato wrote:also is hoctac=hectic?

I process such knowledge, but I only give it out if you pay the Eldritch blood pact.

done. also at this point the answer is yes. this is three times now poor hectic has lost to scum!me. maybe four if hectic had an alt in animals...

In post 871, PookyTheMagicalBear wrote:You literally put me at L-1... the first 2 votes on me at that point was the 2 mafia members. So congrats Drew, you literally helped the 2 scumbags almost lynch the other pureTown group in the game. I led your mislynch because you put me at L-1 with no reasoning whatsoever - it was comically dumb for you to join the 2 mafia members to put me at L-1.

Was loosely following the game, and this sounds like hindsight bias.

Putting someone at L-1 without reasoning is fine, that sort of pressure does often generate good reads.

I wouldn't blame someone for scumreading a 100-post spam OMGUS. There are better ways to react as town, even if you think that L-1 is scummy...

(You're the Trust Tell dude aren't you )

Were you following closely because you're also a hectic alt, auro?

I can neither confirm nor deny rhat.

I also enjoyed skimming this game. My favorite part was the guy who didn't talk in thread and just played chess in his PT.

the guy who doesnt even realize that the game ended, and still thinks its day 1 lol

Yeah I had no idea we were in lylo wtf

are you still playing our chess game dude?