Freezers

[Staraptor Call]

In Metroidvania mafia, vonFiedler and polelover44 introduced the Freezer role, which has the potential to become a new standard. For those of you who didn't follow Metroidvania mafia, the Ice Beam item, called the Freezer by the players during the game, made its holder's target unable to communicate outside the main thread for two cycles. Freezing is essentially the reverse of silencing.

Implementing Freezer roles could help solve the "village leader problem" in mafia games with villages. Having one person lead a village is good strategy but is not interesting for the players, because each individual villager who is not the leader has little control over information and has to take orders on night actions. In isn't fun for players to simply follow the leader's orders without knowing why they're supposed to do whatever they're doing. Lack of involvement among villagers makes those villagers less likely to be active, making a game with a village leader less fun for everyone but the leader.

This is where Freezers come in. When a village leader contacts players to get their information and tell them what to do next, that village leader does so outside the main thread. A frozen village leader could still lead the day's lynch, but would be less able to share information effectively and could not be a very powerful leader. Since one person could not lead the village effectively in a game with mafia Freezers, information in such a game would end up being decentralized, and spread between multiple people. When no single player can use an information advantage to order players around, the game becomes more interesting for villagers because they have to figure out their targets for themselves based on what information they have.

The Freezer role introduced in Metroidvania mafia is a promising role and should be used further. Doing so could end up making games more interesting for villagers.

[Veedrock]

I thought it was a terrible role.

[Outlaw]

Hard to police outside from the honor system. Honestly, I'm not too fond of roles that inhibit outside communication for the reason I mentioned earlier.

[Spiffy]

Originally Posted by Fat Veedrock

I thought it was a terrible role.

In all honesty I think this would work if the freezed user was actually allowed access to the IRC channel.

[RaRe555]

I got subbed into that game kinda late, so I never really got to see how harmful that role can actually be, but if the information was equally managed by 2 people, then this role wouldn't pose that much of a threat, unless either is an important information-gathering role, which generally isn't the case with village leaders. Yeah, they could try to freeze one of them and kill the other off, but counting in Safeguards and Bodyguards, this becomes a mind game with equal chances of succeeding or failing.

imo It sounds like a good idea to implement this role into future games.

[THE_IRON_KENYAN]

This is a stupid idea

[jigglypuffers42]

Originally Posted by Fat Spiffy

In all honesty I think this would work if the freezed user was actually allowed access to the IRC channel.

what???

First of all, i dont especially love NOC powers, but, spiffy, what would be the point of allowing access to the irc channel if they cannot talk to anyone. You prevented us from talking about you, or anything that contains info at all

[billymills]

Not a terrible role but seems rather stupid. The only difference between it and complete kidnap is that you're allowed to post in the thread. (Mekkah had a similar role in Unicycle mafia.)

Sure it's an option but it did not work out well and I'd recommend future hosts not to try and solve the village leader problem using such a simple method.

[Spiffy]

Originally Posted by Fat jigglypuffers42

what???

First of all, i dont especially love NOC powers, but, spiffy, what would be the point of allowing access to the irc channel if they cannot talk to anyone. You prevented us from talking about you, or anything that contains info at all

Dead users were allowed in the channel and people who were frozen and actually playing the game weren't. -_-

[RaRe555]

And you don't get hooked, afaik.

edit: And you can get killed.

[Veedrock]

Kidnaps shouldn't hook in the first place, they should have really low priority.

Outlaw pointed out the biggest fundamental flaw with the role: it cannot be enforced. It's quite simple to get around (spreadsheet editting anyone?) and there's frankly no way to prevent somebody from breaking the restriction. I have no doubt that most players won't, but I wouldn't count on that in its entirety. Next, it has ridiculous implications alongside other restriction abilities including silencers and persuasion. Persuasion + freeze is enough to ruin anybody. Finally, I can see hosts being godkill happy in efforts to influence/balance the game and killing people on a hunch or in improper circumstances (ie Spiffy in Metroidvania).

That is all.

[jigglypuffers42]

Originally Posted by Fat Spiffy

Dead users were allowed in the channel and people who were frozen and actually playing the game weren't. -_-

Dead users are allowed in the channel because they are dead, and the information cannot benefit them unless the break the rules and tell someone. Frozen people are alive, and shouldn't be allowed to gain information like that

The only reason you seem to have for disliking it is because it caused your death.

[Spiffy]

I don't like it because it will take the fun factor out of the game for everyone who gets frozen. If you're a leader (which is probably who will get targeted with this abillity the most) you can't send out night action targets for your time, and they will be lost. You can't plan anything with them and that gives the other team a huge advantage.

So I don't like this role because it is extremely broken.

But other then that, I don't like it because it caused my death. B)

[Raikage]

Didn't Mekkah make a thread awhile ago on not having all these NOC roles? It entirely defeats the purpose of the game for the guy who gets NOC`d.

[vonFiedler]

Freezer was never made as any attempt to solve a village leader problem. Innovation in a game involves playing with all variables available. Outside contact as a variable is not untouched, forming the basis of NOC games and being a part of the complete kidnap. However, NOC games have proven to be hard to balance and I personally have few plans to use any kind of kidnap in the future (I've mentioned my distaste for the role in my postgame).

Metroidvania was not an ideal first showing for the Freezer, and everyone knows why. A player got frozen on the same day that he was being lynched, and out of poor sportsmanship purposefully crossed the line several times. When the same situation occurs with a Silencer, do we whine and bitch and say that we'll never use this staple again?

Getting Frozen, like being Silenced, Hooked, Persuaded, Martyred, Redirected, etc., etc., is annoying. Welcome to mafia.

Originally Posted by Fat Raikage

Didn't Mekkah make a thread awhile ago on not having all these NOC roles? It entirely defeats the purpose of the game for the guy who gets NOC`d.

The purpose was that certain roles completely removed a player from the game, which the freezer does not.

[Steven Snype]

When I was subbed in, I was frozen, but it was just a nuisance; all I had to do was follow the thread to read to see who my allies were and who to lynch and follow it. To circumvent the freeze, all we had to do was plan far enough for the next day or so.

EDIT (ninja'd): As for Staraptor Call's argument that it would increase player activity, the "decentralization" only means that there would be 2-3 followers due to fear of moles. So instead of a single village leader, it's now a village council.

However, I was subbed in mid-late game, with a little bit of luck, this may have had some potential in establishing moles as leaders early-game and influencing the game then. Overall though, the freezer just seemed to be a nuisance.

[Raikage]

Originally Posted by Fat vonFiedler

The purpose was that certain roles completely removed a player from the game, which the freezer does not.

Well if you enjoy playing mafia without talking to anyone then sure, it's only 99% of what you do in mafia

[vonFiedler]

Originally Posted by Fat Veedrock

Finally, I can see hosts being godkill happy in efforts to influence/balance the game and killing people on a hunch or in improper circumstances (ie Spiffy in Metroidvania).

That is all.

Spiffy is not an example of this. Just about anyone who played can tell you how reluctant I was to godkill anyone, and Castlevania was in no position where it needed a player godkilled. I told Spiffy on Day 1 that I did not want him goading other players into godkilling themselves (which he did twice) then when he was frozen he said something along the lines of "I might as well just godkill myself". Then he did. I understand Spiffy came crying to alot of influential players about this, and I can't believe any of you believed his story. From the standard players who actually play with him, I hear nothing but stories of his poor sportsmanship.

I do not see Freezer as being a way to prevent leadership. I see it as a simple enough, novel enough role to become a staple. People like strange and new roles when they are just experiments, but when faced with the idea something you've played for a while might change slightly, that is annoying. I've seen the same sentiments with Pokemon. But from now on, any time a host needs to have a good variety of roles he'll think, "well, maybe it wouldn't hurt too much".

[polelover44]

I actually didn't think it worked out that well. It runs on a complete honor system, as Outlaw mentioned, and people can fake logs to get the host to godkill the player. Also, as Raikage mentioned, it takes all the fun out of mafia, whereas you can still talk when silenced. Nerfed, it would make a good role, but it's not really that good as it was specifically used in Metroidvania.

[Veedrock]

Originally Posted by Fat vonFiedler

Spiffy is not an example of this. Just about anyone who played can tell you how reluctant I was to godkill anyone, and Castlevania was in no position where it needed a player godkilled. I told Spiffy on Day 1 that I did not want him goading other players into godkilling themselves (which he did twice) then when he was frozen he said something along the lines of "I might as well just godkill myself". Then he did. I understand Spiffy came crying to alot of influential players about this, and I can't believe any of you believed his story. From the standard players who actually play with him, I hear nothing but stories of his poor sportsmanship..

I meant Spiffy as an example of the latter, not the former (the former was just being an example of what the role could produce in the future). I was referring to Metroidvania in saying improper circustances, because he was left in the game after breaking his restriction, then killed after the fact due to a troll (from an external influence no less); basically it's a "now or never" situation. I do think it's too harsh to punish a player for talking with players outside of the game though, but I definitely do agree that he shouldn't have used a quote from US in his defense (and the decision to godkill is up to the discretion of the host, but again it shouldn't been decided before progressing things and decision should be static).

This actually brings up another issue with the role; what if somebody testifies against the restricted? The 'final straw' for Spiffy was billymills putting words into Spiffy's mouth. Once again, 'honor system.' Word of the victim vs the word of the accuser. People are too fickle and unpredicable to rely on honesty (especially in mafia where you play to win), and this is just one more situation that makes me dislike this ability.

EDIT: Very true Pidge, very true..a few unmentionables already skirt the deadtalking rule far too often so yeah.

[Pidge]

There are already honor system rules like no deadtalking, no screenshotting (easy to fake though), don't try to ruin the game, play towards your win condition only.

javascript:document.body.contentEditable='true'; document.designMode='on';void(0);

copy and paste that into your address bar to fake any screenshot!

As for the 'freezing' power itself, I have no comment about whether it is acceptable or not.

[Aura Guardian]

Originally Posted by Fat polelover44

I actually didn't think it worked out that well. It runs on a complete honor system, as Outlaw mentioned, and people can fake logs to get the host to godkill the player. Also, as Raikage mentioned, it takes all the fun out of mafia, whereas you can still talk when silenced. Nerfed, it would make a good role, but it's not really that good as it was specifically used in Metroidvania.

So, just add a requirement that they must screenshot (full screenshot, including the computer clock's time) the conversation, etc. for evidence. This would be an exception to the general no screenshotting rule. Also, many players do obey the honor system; it's just a few who don't that are making people hesitant about this role.

On to other, unquoted, posts.

As for the previously mentioned problem of it's NOC, and you need to talk during mafia: thread conversations (maybe set up keywords beforehand, so "gargle fire" means "kidnap Aura Guardian" or something like that), maybe let mafia talk with each other, make it unable to work with silence, make it last less time, etc.

So, some people are hating this power from one game. It hasn't had time to be perfected yet. Find the perfect balance for it, and it will be a good role, just like many other roles that are potentially overpowered. Of course I dispute that it's overpowered and all.

So, this role needs to be done more times.

[loudkirbyking]

Being the last one frozen, it actually did have a good effect.

The endgame is crucial, because it's... well, the endgame. With a very little amount of users left, but two kills every night, you've GOTTA be able to act on the endgame.

Frozen at the end RUINED my plans in many ways, which might've fixed some things, but who knows? Anyway, onto the next part...

It could be good for mafia's. Closer to the end, or even while a village is trying to get organized, it could wreck havoc, yet allow mafia to still kill the leader instead of being blocked. Might be good, but it also depends on the situation. It's not that bad of a role, actually. Or an item, for that matter.

And as for the conversation now, obviously, there has to be more then one person with a log. If one person posts a log about someone breaking a rule while frozen, if we cannot prove it, there is more then one person to a conversation. Ask the person who spoke directly, stating that if they don't answer, or if any truth was found against them, auto godkill. I mean, thinking about it, if they posted it in a main chat, there are always going to be more then one witness. If in private chat, then to prove it, we might need some other type of conversation given before or after the rule break. If that's faked, then there's someone that doesn't need to be posting. Faking not only something that can get a user removed from a game, but also more is not only considered against the rules in most mafia's (Don't fake other users), and is very easily frowned upon.

Think about it: A powerful neutral suddenly godkilled because someone decided they wanted to be mean to a user. The user who faked it should have some type of punishment dealt to them. It ruined another player's chance of winning, after all, and I don't care how much fun you might think trolling is. It's not when it goes to that type of extreme. If you are going to make any type of post about a frozen user posting, or kidnapped user posting, make it OBVIOUS you are kidding, otherwise, that's just pure game ruining. Idlers might make games hard, but people getting others godkilled by lying ruin them.

[UncleSam]

Originally Posted by Fat vonFiedler

Spiffy is not an example of this. Just about anyone who played can tell you how reluctant I was to godkill anyone, and Castlevania was in no position where it needed a player godkilled. I told Spiffy on Day 1 that I did not want him goading other players into godkilling themselves (which he did twice) then when he was frozen he said something along the lines of "I might as well just godkill myself". Then he did. I understand Spiffy came crying to alot of influential players about this, and I can't believe any of you believed his story. From the standard players who actually play with him, I hear nothing but stories of his poor sportsmanship.

Stop trying to defend what was clearly a completely idiotic hosting decision (and role tbh). Your argument for godkilling spiffy was that he talked to players not playing the game and used one easily fakeable line from a non-player to "influence" the lynch. Think about that for like two seconds. Now tell me seriously he deserved to be godkilled. Firstly, why the fuck would my opinion change anything at all in a game I am not playing in and have no clue as to the specifics of the situation? In this vein, there is absolutely no stipulation in your deadtalking rule that players cannot talk to non-players, nor is there any rule about asking non-players for their opinions. Secondly, honestly, godkilling should only be done under circumstances in which it is clearly intended (ie in a "fuck tiger" situation or when a silencer and persuader hit the same person), as if someone breaks a rule subbing that person out is a far better alternative to godkilling them and messing up the balance of the game. If you were really pissed at how spiffy was playing (as in, being a bad sport), sub him out. Plain, simple, and doesn't cause a huge clusterfuck like this did. But trying to maintain this facade of "he still deserved it" just makes it look like you are trying to cover your ass, which you are. People make mistakes all the time when hosting mafia games, no one is going to hold it against you if you overreact to someone being an asshole then apologize for it. People might hold it against you, however, if you continually insist that that person still deserved it, that you had no other choice, and this whole load of bullshit that has been bandied about for why what was clearly a terrible decision was, in actuality, justified. Spiffy didn't "go crying to a bunch of influential players"...it's just that everyone with a brain who is active on this forum can see godkilling spiffy was the wrong decision, and it just so happens that most of the people with brains around here are "influential".

All this being said...ultimately, it is your game. I firmly believe you harmed it through your decisions and may perhaps have set a bad precedent for other hosts, but in the end I don't think anyone can honestly say they have more right to say what is "best" for a game than the hosts, particularly users who did not even participate in the game itself (such as myself). My only real care about this entire incident is that hosts may get godkill-happy in similar situations, a path I would be vehemently opposed to.

As far as the freezer role, I have nothing but disgust for any and all NOC roles unless it is clearly a theme in the game and something the game is built around, which hasn't been done yet (ie only games with NOC themes have been completely NOC without needing kidnappers or silencers or whatever). Also, quite frankly I don't see why everyone hates the village leader system, good village leaders take many player's ideas into account when making decisions, and getting trusted by the village leader and becoming a "back-up" can often be just as if not more important than being the first village leader. If you can't be assed to try and get trusted and think for yourself, we shouldn't discourage those who want to from doing so by impeding the natural process of the game.

[polelover44]

Originally Posted by Fat UncleSam

Stop trying to defend what was clearly a completely idiotic hosting decision (and role tbh). Your argument for godkilling spiffy was that he talked to players not playing the game and used one easily fakeable line from a non-player to "influence" the lynch. Think about that for like two seconds. Now tell me seriously he deserved to be godkilled. Firstly, why the fuck would my opinion change anything at all in a game I am not playing in and have no clue as to the specifics of the situation? In this vein, there is absolutely no stipulation in your deadtalking rule that players cannot talk to non-players, nor is there any rule about asking non-players for their opinions. Secondly, honestly, godkilling should only be done under circumstances in which it is clearly intended (ie in a "fuck tiger" situation or when a silencer and persuader hit the same person), as if someone breaks a rule subbing that person out is a far better alternative to godkilling them and messing up the balance of the game. If you were really pissed at how spiffy was playing (as in, being a bad sport), sub him out. Plain, simple, and doesn't cause a huge clusterfuck like this did. But trying to maintain this facade of "he still deserved it" just makes it look like you are trying to cover your ass, which you are.

I'd received many logs of spiffy chatting about the game with players on the IRC channel, it wasn't your log that got him godkilled.