Fairness is not ruining the gaming experience for other players in favour of one person. Mitch should only be in newbie or vanilla games until he learns how to play,; he has no business being in experimental games that have a far greater degree of difficulty. If he does not understand the general rules and principles for the average game then how are we going to expect him to understand this one?
dakky21 wrote:It's not really fair to move mitch to the game which will probably never start, but start the experimental one with Skoffin in it. Either start both or don't start either. Or put mitch as well in this one, Skoff is free to quit it... Just saying. I don't like Mitch play either but it's not fair what we're doing here.
He has made moves in games that would be called out as game-throwing behaviour had anyone else done it, but because of the 'mitch is mitch' mentality he is allowed to do it and not learn from it nor face consequences for his actions.
Back in the day we blacklisted players ( such as new, ani and cena) for such poor player, or restricted them to newbie games, and they became far better players for it as they had to actually work on their play to earn their way back in. The leftover community here has gone far too soft, and that is why we barely have a community left.
Why bother trying to play a game when it's going to go down to chance due to some wildcard player having no impulse control?
I second this. I've tried to avoid this discussion because I don't like tackling these kinds of issues, but this needs to be addressed as a community.
I don't think this is the right place to rant about it, but I'm not gonna open a topic in the discussion section, so here I go.
Mafia is supposed to be a thought-provoking game of analysis, mind games, trickery, deceit, and whatever else you want to call it. I've played it for years in that manner and have immensely enjoyed it. Increasing the "difficulty" by adding exotic roles, new mechanics and all that jazz challenges me as a player to be more creative and to think outside the box. When I win a game, I prefer it be over a well thought out argument or a very clutch tell, by me or another player. When I lose a game, I prefer it to be because I was outplayed, or because someone caught me in a lie.
In the last game we finished (CYOC), I believe the detriment of Mitch being in a complex game really showed. It seemed to me that, even though he was basically a confirmed town, even the mafia had no incentive at all to kill him because he's simply bad at the game. If it would have been anyone else in that position, the game would've been played very differently just because of that alone. Secondly, even though he had achieved this status in the game, he did absolutely nothing
to move it forward. Thirdly, he achieved that status by performing an absolutely insane daykill and I do not
mean that as a compliment. This is not enjoyable gameplay. It's detrimental to the goal of the game, which is enjoyment.
I suspect some people are thinking Skoffin's opinion on this is biased because Mitch shot her in the face for no apparent reason, but you're missing the fact that that is exactly the point.
1) "That's just his playstyle"
- Not playing the actual game isn't a playstyle. Making short posts can be a playstyle, I will even concede that posting gibberish can be a playstyle (one Mandy has mastered) but in those playstyles the player adds something to the game
. Mitch does not. I enjoy putting thought, time and effort into the game, but I stop enjoying it when this is not returned by the other players.
2) "He's unpredictable, isn't that the point of mafia"
- Yes he is unpredictable, but again, it doesn't serve a purpose. Some time ago when Mtam and Storr still played here, they also played unpredictably and seemingly random at times, but (a) they were capable of not doing that, and (b) their 'random' actions weren't mindless. I enjoyed playing with them because they actually had a bigger plan, a follow-up play. Mitch does not, or at least has never shown evidence to the contrary.
3) "It's unfair to remove him from games just because you don't like him"
- I don't hate Mitch. I just hate the way he plays the game and subsequently ruins the game by playing it in that manner. I will refer again to CYOC: I won that game, but the second phase of that game was a nightmare. I did not enjoy it at all. This was partly because the players weren't posting, but also because I was apparently supposed to be telling a toddler how to drive the car after he already crashed it into a tree. That game was decided by the fact that Mitch had his vote on the right guy after swinging it half a dozen times. I sincerely regret not policy lynching Mitch, I think it would have made the game far more interesting. What would have made the game even more interesting is having a very powerful role played by an actually competent player.
4) "The teams are random so you won't always be on his team, it's perfectly balanced even if he plays poorly"
- Balance is great but it doesn't lead to enjoyment. I don't care if he is on my team, he is as likely to help his team as to harm it.
5) "it is just a game no need to get so upset about it, it is not Life there is more in the world to get upset about then a stupid game"
- We play games because we enjoy them. Take away that enjoyment and there's no reason to play.
I strongly believe it isn't bad or wrong to simply say "I don't enjoy playing this game with you". It may not be very kind, but it is the truth and it's long past time we faced it. Nobody is suggesting to kick Mitch out of CC mafia forever. Honestly, I think he might actually enjoy playing in less complicated games, and like Skoffin said he might actually learn a thing or two.
Regarding this game, I'm not really interested in the rookie version and, as you may have gathered, I'm also not really interested in playing with Mitch.