Epicmafia

over 9 years

Welcome back giga

over 9 years

you are just picking words that you can make a half-assed argument against and ignoring the main point of the argument. the only reason i can see you doing this is because you don't actually care about being right, but looking right.

deletedover 9 years

Giga13 says

what is happening friends

GIGA! HOW ARE YOU??!!

deletedover 9 years

emperorschance says

if mafia wins 60% of the time but gets way less points than the town does for winning then who cares?

Your logic is not welcome here

deletedover 9 years

Slow says

Sirius says

Slow says

too much difficulty for one side removes autonomy (control of the game's events, or outcome in this case) from the players and puts it in the hands of the RNG that handed everyone the roles at the start of the game

what

he's basically saying, say, taking it to the extreme, that if the setup were 100% scumsided, then the wins handed out by that setup would be completely up to chance, they'd be a product of the random assignment of roles/alignments only

if it was 100% scumsided then it wouldn't even be determined by RNG. it would just be a scum win every time.

it's that who won would be determined by rng, bear. the setup would become a complete gamble, and nobody's wins/losses on it would mean anything. he's right. and a&d round might very well just be a big roll of the dice for everybody.

Giga13

over 9 years

what is happening friends

deletedover 9 years

i didnt mean to plus my own post there, but oh well.

Hibiki

over 9 years

Lashka says

Ah, so anything that is ever decided by the RNG is bad and should be removed? Fair point, let me conside- lol.

you are pathetic

deletedover 9 years

if mafia wins 60% of the time but gets way less points than the town does for winning then who cares?

deletedover 9 years

Ah, so anything that is ever decided by the RNG is bad and should be removed? Fair point, let me conside- lol.

Sims

over 9 years

I don't like to gamble so the gamblers fallacy is lost on me

deletedover 9 years

Hibiki says

Slow says

if it was 100% scumsided then it wouldn't even be determined by RNG. it would just be a scum win every time.

the players who win are the players who rolled scum - that's the RNG

a 100% scumsided setup wouldn't be comp'd in the first place anyway.

Hibiki

over 9 years

Slow says

if it was 100% scumsided then it wouldn't even be determined by RNG. it would just be a scum win every time.

the players who win are the players who rolled scum - that's the RNG

Hibiki

over 9 years

Lashka says

Which is what probability and payouts are there for.

And arguing about those is the Gambler's Fallacy you were spurting for pages earlier.

i'm talking about single games, you god damn idiot

deletedover 9 years

Sirius says

Slow says

too much difficulty for one side removes autonomy (control of the game's events, or outcome in this case) from the players and puts it in the hands of the RNG that handed everyone the roles at the start of the game

what

he's basically saying, say, taking it to the extreme, that if the setup were 100% scumsided, then the wins handed out by that setup would be completely up to chance, they'd be a product of the random assignment of roles/alignments only

if it was 100% scumsided then it wouldn't even be determined by RNG. it would just be a scum win every time.

Renaldo

over 9 years

Devante says

i was just on your profile looking at your created setups (lol) and saw two with the name Renaldo

ah yeah they're numbered differently.

deletedover 9 years

what happened to the original

deletedover 9 years

pranay comp teo dude stop being a

deletedover 9 years

Hibiki says

Slow says

too much difficulty for one side removes autonomy (control of the game's events, or outcome in this case) from the players and puts it in the hands of the RNG that handed everyone the roles at the start of the game

what

tl;dr if it's too scumsided unless ur rly good then scum basically win cuz they rolled scum and that's BS when it's supposed to be competitive

Which is what probability and payouts are there for.

And arguing about those is the Gambler's Fallacy you were spurting for pages earlier.

deletedover 9 years

he's got a point. setups are going to break as they tend scumsided

Hibiki

over 9 years

pranay7744 says

hey connor- because the original has emotional value to me. If you start a new website mimicking em, it wouldnt be the same for me.

it would be the same roles, just remade so that the ponts are 60/60

the current version of A&D is the remake. the original was by kennedy

pranay7744

over 9 years

im gonna go get ready for work, will take 30 minutes, so pm me your setup connor, else im keeping the ones that are there.

deletedover 9 years

i was just on your profile looking at your created setups (lol) and saw two with the name Renaldo

deletedover 9 years

connor, there's no such thing as a scum sided setup, unless the % over 100 games is like 60% mafia, that, that sir, is the only way.

deletedover 9 years

Slow says

too much difficulty for one side removes autonomy (control of the game's events, or outcome in this case) from the players and puts it in the hands of the RNG that handed everyone the roles at the start of the game

what

he's basically saying, say, taking it to the extreme, that if the setup were 100% scumsided, then the wins handed out by that setup would be completely up to chance, they'd be a product of the random assignment of roles/alignments only

if we're freeing A&D