typing...

...gnipyt

Can someone explain what this is......first ZFR did this and now you are doing it....is this some sort of game play tactic or just silly posting? o.0

Sure, that's exactly what I'm saying. I am just an asshole that is doing his best to be against the spirit of the game. This will be my last post of the game.

Good luck everyone

:(

Not to pry, but why are you leaving us? Over a bit of banter? It didn't seem overly mean spirited(but maybe i'm missing something?), and the post before it seemed a valid question.

Anyways I am sorry to see you go, but it's your choice to make & I will respect that/wish you the best with future endeavors(mafia games/etc) on the forums.

Oh Trent, I'm sorry I got personal and I knew I shouldn't have written that but it was late at night and you threatening to quit the game just pissed me off. I hoped that we know each other well enough that we could piss each other off without it being an issue. I'm sorry.

I don't even want to play meta, I just thought having a discussion about who would want to might throw up some interesting things, but if you think discussing it is getting in the way of the game we can move on, but please don't quit over this.

I think ZFR was just making a joke about how there's very little to say at this stage of the game where activity is slow and not everybody's turned up yet, and microfish is just being funny.
Gentlemen, am I wrong?

On another note. Can I request any Liberal who gets 2 blue cards to force blue rather than 'test' their chancellor? Because losing 2 blue cards from a deck will get us to the Hitler Zone quicker.

It's the way I always play the game and I was trying to share my knowledge of the game in order to look liberal. If you don't use a standard meta you constantly have to question why initial presidents nominate who they do

So let's say Rager and RWarehall pass - does it conflict? If not is that because both are Liberal or because RWarehall is building up Liberal credit and both are facist?

I've said this previously that if you don't use a Meta, there's a high change Hitler is in initial government in order to build up Liberal creditability. Has Rager picked RWarehall because he's Hitler?

The other issue with not using a meta is when more people 'touch deck' you don't test any of them very much. So the last game we played on here Trent passed 1 liberal policy as a fascist and then get the gun in the Hitler zone and shoot a liberal. Using a meta means this player would have to play more liberal cards in order to do that. He can still do it but it's more difficult to do and the fascists would need to be lucky enough to have most of the fascists in the meta positions. The Special Election and the first gun always goes to the most liberal player. How can you have a most liberal player if you only test a player once or twice?

Essentially meta favours liberals if they are in the meta positions and fascists if they are in the meta positions and it tests those players more thoroughly.

If you have a low liberal policy card count from the deck and you have only 3 presidents versus a low liberal policy card count from 5 presidents which is beneficial to liberals? Because it's 90% chance we get 5 or 6 blue cards from a deck and 10% chance of a 4 blue deck. It's the first because you know a fascist within 3 players probably silent dropped blue cards. Sometimes you see 3 blue decks where you know there's been 1 or 2 silent drops. In this case Liberals may want the special election to go to someone who hasn't yet played because the fascists are clearly in the low blue deck.

Sometimes you might even see a 7 blue deck which means a fascist has made up a blue card in order to conflict another player. That in turn doesn't make the conflicted player liberal. It's a fascist tactic for a fascist to conflict hitler. So when we get to Hitler Zone and we're looking for a player who isn't Hitler, we pick players in conflict because they probably aren't Hitler. In this instance the fascist in conflict may opt to out himself in order to make his Hitler a better pick.

Which means that the majority of those who had an opinion were against it.

Consider it: either Scene's big scheme actually does skew the chances in favour of one faction. In which case it is game-breaking and should be forbidden. Breaking the balance of a game that is usually quite well balanced detracts from the fun of the game.
Or the scheme doesn't actually help the Liberals but just reduces the complexity of the game and makes it boring. In which case it isn't a good idea either.

In any case, Scene'n meta idea is bad and would make for a less fun game. And yes, I played in one where the majority agreed on such a scheme. It was boring, because there was far less discussion about the why of the candidate selection and about the voting. And guess what? The Fascists won. Which doesn't surprise me, because less discussions and less revealed reasoning means less chances of finding out who the Fascists are. Everyone can just hide behind 'Meta says so' - and that is the worst you can do for a social deduction game.

If Scene hadn't tried to promote this bad meta play before the game started, I would assume now that he is a Fascist, who wants to achieve exactly that: less discussion about candidates and votes.

And actually I can get behind trent's sentiment: I would rather not play than play in a broken, pointless game that had it's main deduction methods - nominations and vote-discussions - taken away.


Please don't over-react! Scene is the only one who actually wants that stupid Meta-gaming. Joe was just asking a question. Sure, in a provocative tone. But you know these games. Provocations happen.

Which is EXACTLY the kind of discussions the game is made of. Why do you want to break the game? If you hate discussions that much, why do you even play a social deduction game, that is based entirely on the fun of discussions, deceit and deduction?

How about a new meta-rule. Let's agree on the rule "The Liberals Win!" ... There. All discussions avoided, a perfectly efficient game and we have won. Yay. We can stop playing.

If you play on secrethitler.io everyone plays in meta, it's still a fun game. The winrate is listed at 53% Liberal 47% Fascist in the 8 player game. Doesn't sound particularly gamebreaking does it? In fact it's higher infomation because if you have less presidents you have more information from the deck.

I'd assume the winrate would be higher for fascists without meta play because they can manipulate the play to their advantage. I asked about meta in the sign up thread and haven't posted since.

Based on the reaction here I'm assuming one of 2 things:

1. People prefer to play without meta for greater emphasis on social deduction and 'fun'.

or

2. Rager and RWarehall are 2 fascist players and voting them down would vastly hurt fascists chances and the fascists are panicking

However if this government passes, Liberals need to ensure that Rager and RWarehall are tested as many times as possible as chancellors until they conflict with someone. They essentially need to be the goto chancellors/presidents to test them thoroughly.

It doesn't stop it being social deduction. It increases the amount of information to make deduction.

You don't even notice that 2. doesn't make sense, do you? If you would think, you would notice that the numbers don't match up. If Rager and RW are fascist and trent and me are vehemently opposed to the meta play due to us being Fascists too - that would make 4 fascists. Which is one more than the rules say we have in this game.

Soo... pure DEDUCTION, you know, the thing that this game is about, should tell you that it's option 1. Meta is just a bad idea. The rules of the game are fine as they are and they are quite balanced. There is no need to halve the fun of the game just because you don't like insecurity. You want more information? Gain it by deduction and by social interaction. Not by enforced meta-rules.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But let's drop this stupid meta idea. There are other things of note:

ZFR just posts short nonsense. Why?
Microfish copies ZFR. Why?

RWarehall didn't make any appearance at all, so far. Shouldn't a nominee show up before being voted into office? @RW: show up and make your campaign speech!

@joesapphire I would want to skip you and re-test @Rwarehall if this government A) Is elected B) Passes a Liberal Policy

This ensures that A) RWarehall if Liberal plays twice B) If RWarehall is fascist he is thoroughly tested. If someone passes a fascist policy we can block them and proceed with other players.

While it's numerically true all 4 can not be fascist that doesn't mean 3 of them can't be. It could well be the case there are 3 fascists and it would hurt fascist chances if this doesn't pass. So theoretically if Rager is Hitler and skipped that would seriously impact Fascists win chance percentage. I don't state your objection is definitely the case, it just makes me believe it is more likely to be the case.

As for ZFR & Microfish talk means little at this stage as there is very little to discuss as no action other than a nomination has occured.

This made me laugh a bit....thanks for that....also now that you sorta mention it I would LOVE to see a flavor heavy(players as well as OP/mod) game if its in the cards.

(But a game with some flavor is still somewhat good too)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am leaning towards Joe being right about them in Post 51, but i'd like to hear it in their own words, of course.

He's likely busy practicing kissing hands and shaking babi,,,,er, strike that & reverse it(as Mr. Wonka would say).

Hahahahaha... No.