TWG 150: Undertale Postgame

[Tokzic]

Re: TWG 150: Undertale Postgame

Ugh, I had the game solved when I died but I didn't have any confidence in it because town was misreading me.

I haven't read the end of the game yet, but I wish Makilaz had claimed Medic...

[DaBackpack]

Re: TWG 150: Undertale Postgame

I can see RB's point about ignoring honestly

It allows for really shitty town-reads that shouldn't be possible

Like as he said, the desperation to threaten to reveal a role PM is something that essentially outs a player as town (even if they don't actually do it) which can lead to bad habits

And how you could potentially glean information about players from whether or not they view the thread during the night phase, which yeah sure you could always turn invisible, but certain players can still see invisible players (this is something I wanted to bring up eventually, it leads to asymmetry if not all players can view invisible users in TWG imo)

And how you can reason about things like modkilling and replacing out even though you shouldn't be able to in a perfect environment

In this circumstance, it could have been possible to gain town reads on sunfan because he muted another player ---- yeah, sure, a WOLF could have done it too, but then people can adapt the mindset that "hey if I claim I'm gonna mute people then I gain town points" which is a really crappy meta to have on this site imo

[DaBackpack]

Re: TWG 150: Undertale Postgame

maybe I'm in the minority but I don't feel right allowing "non-diagetic information" (so to speak) to inform my reads in a game; reads ideally should come from player behaviors and interactions, not artifacts of the forum mechanics and such

[DaBackpack]

Re: TWG 150: Undertale Postgame

to be clear I don't see anything wrong with sunfan's use, but I don't think it's something that we should be encouraging in future games

EDIT: I don't have a problem with the ignore feature, but I do have a problem if in the future, people start spouting information about ignoring in order to gain points in a way which is not in the spirit of the game

[Makilaz]

Re: TWG 150: Undertale Postgame

Ugh, I had the game solved when I died but I didn't have any confidence in it because town was misreading me.

I haven't read the end of the game yet, but I wish Makilaz had claimed Medic...

Papyrus claimed medic immediately, like before i had even been able to read the thread and i was certain if i counterclaimed i was dead before he was

i mean i could've claimed it earlier in the game but i couldn't figure out how to do that without seeming scummy as fuck

[lurker]

Re: TWG 150: Undertale Postgame

i tried to get him to post the genocide ending family portrait if the wolves won but he never responded

i gotchu

[choof]

Re: TWG 150: Undertale Postgame

maybe I'm in the minority but I don't feel right allowing "non-diagetic information" (so to speak) to inform my reads in a game; reads ideally should come from player behaviors and interactions, not artifacts of the forum mechanics and such

is ignoring another player not a behavior
is ignoring another player not an interaction

[DaBackpack]

Re: TWG 150: Undertale Postgame

is ignoring another player not a behavior
is ignoring another player not an interaction

so is threatening to post your PM

it's a behavior/interaction that could potentially break the game if the meta catches on

which I classify as a forum artifact

EDIT: well, it's a little bit different, but I think it's the same kind of principle

abusing a forum deficiency in order to gain strategic advantage

EDIT EDIT: I actually don't have any strong opinion on the matter, but I don't think it should be dismissed as trivial like it has been

[thesunfan]

Re: TWG 150: Undertale Postgame

"I'm going to put you on ignore if you keep doing [x]" or just straight up "I'm going to to put you on ignore"

"I'm going to stop reading your posts if you keep doing [x]"

I fail to see a distinction here

[DaBackpack]

Re: TWG 150: Undertale Postgame

"I'm going to put you on ignore if you keep doing [x]" or just straight up "I'm going to to put you on ignore"

"I'm going to stop reading your posts if you keep doing [x]"

I fail to see a distinction here

I think there's a distinction in connotation there, the first is a stronger statement imo

and (I don't remember who, sorry) mentioned that you putting someone on ignore was an action that in and of itself was considered towny --- if (and I'm not sure if this is the case) something like that "gains meta", you'd have more people ignoring each other (or pretending to) and that would be kind of a mess

[DaBackpack]

Re: TWG 150: Undertale Postgame

if (and I'm not sure if this is the case) something like that "gains meta", you'd have more people ignoring each other (or pretending to) and that would be kind of a mess

though admittedly I can't see this happening all too often, and if it did, it would fade into obscurity as people realized how stupid assigning town points to that action -as a rule- is

edit: the situation I want to avoid is "press this button to gain town points", especially when that action done en masse would have chaotic results

as long as everyone understands that the ignore feature is not something to exploit, I think we'll be OK

[dAnceguy117]

Re: TWG 150: Undertale Postgame

And how you could potentially glean information about players from whether or not they view the thread during the night phase, which yeah sure you could always turn invisible, but certain players can still see invisible players (this is something I wanted to bring up eventually, it leads to asymmetry if not all players can view invisible users in TWG imo)

super agreed, especially on the last part, it's turrible

[Tokzic]

Re: TWG 150: Undertale Postgame

I think ignoring players is probably not worthy of being made illegal. I've even done it before, against Bowser's fake Seer claim in the Smash game.

Lurker MVP imo. I made a point before I died of saying "WHY IS NOBODY CONSIDERING PAPYRUS?" Completely dodged the gun the entire game.

[dAnceguy117]

Re: TWG 150: Undertale Postgame

though admittedly I can't see this happening all too often, and if it did, it would fade into obscurity as people realized how stupid assigning town points to that action -as a rule- is

I was gonna mention this. plus I find the idea of it catching on even briefly kind of amusing. like maybe I would try to policy lynch someone for doing it because lol?

also I feel like outlawing this would be very difficult to enforce. do you punish someone for actually using the ignore function but not telling any of the other players they did it? (btw how would you find out?) do you punish someone if they don't actually put someone on ignore but tell everyone they did it?

you make some gud points though. but idk I think it's pretty low on the list of possible rule additions that could be considered.

plus having players deal with this kind of thing the way they want to in-game can be fun. like when fiction made it very clear to everyone in OOT games that he would never send conversation logs to anyone regardless of his alignment/role. or like when afrobean would lynch anyone who told any kind of fib. except this would be more fun I think.

[dAnceguy117]

Re: TWG 150: Undertale Postgame

OMG