On Improving In Mafia

[Porochaz]

I havent played in a non-invitational/non-oldie/non-f2f in years but I thought the site meta was on an uptick, because the meta a few years ago utterly shockingly poor. What I find is that it kinda goes in cycle of hyper-analytical to one-liner/point at someone randomly. I skimmed your article, I think looking at it from a one size fits all category really doesn't work (which I think you are pointing out). I prefer playing mafia to town, always have. I have more great scum games than town games. (although I have a couple of shockers as well) I also used to try and be inconsistent with my playstyle. Both of which I don't think is usual within the sites meta (at the time I was playing). I also played a very meta heavy game, which was well within the sites meta in the early days and went very badly against it in my last few - the last game I remember I was lynched because of it. Which was frustrating because yep, I was scum, but it would have been something I would have done as town as well. But I guess that some of that falls down to me, in that as site meta evolves you have to evolve with it.

As I say, Im a few years out of date but when I last modded everyone was at each others throats/playing for themselves which meant a lack of useful interaction. Whilst I do partially mean "one-liners" or vote posts, I also mean pages upon pages of just the same person posting 37 times straight or 2 people viciously arguing without a real point behind it. I felt both in terms of playing and modding the aim of the game had turned into exhaust the other players to quit/replace out. I had thought the site had gotten better for that? In which case I think the site meta has improved?

Looking at win-rates doesn't seem to be helpful to me. If you want to talk about site-meta in terms of quality of play then win-rates shouldn't account for it. Having now read the whole thread I see people have hit upon these points already and as when I post in md threads I have to remember that a lot of the people who played when I started in 2007 don't play anymore and we have now gone through a few generations and iterations of the game. The people commenting here are mainly people who have joined in the last few years and are evolving their own site meta. Looking at past metas and thinking those are better or worse is distinctly unhelpful and will cause ill-feeling. (unless you are talking about the shit-talking/spam era) I think for this era you have to take into account the smaller player-base which means player meta is likely stronger. Smaller unthemed games as far as Im aware are taking precedent which Im sure effects things - themed games were more popular in my day, where new and unusual roles and mechanics allowed for scope for shenanigans/things for people to hide behind. It sounds like quite an open meta at the moment - which would contribute to a higher town win-rate.

In any case, the talk about game setups being worse etc. shouldn't even be an argument. Things like more properly defining normal roles, having a setup committee, feedback forms, more stringent modding/punishments etc should all be contributing towards better setups. (even if I feel that some of those things have caused more harm than good) However in my view thats a separate argument from the one being discussed here.

[Porochaz]

Also as someone who has obviously played under different accounts I will assume I have played with you at some point. I won't ask who you are but I presume that's correct?