When you think like this, you start finding this very thing in the games even if it's not actually there. Just ask the people that were making pastebins for "cheaters" when this thread was created.
"Player x and player y are both speaking in a similar manner, but player x always speaks that way, and player y only speaks that way when they are mafia.
This used to exist because people only came to this site to play comp. Everyone that used their hearts was running regardless of care about a trophy and why playing with a friend is currently broken. It sounds worse than it is and didn't manifest in game because players didn't have to play with each other.
Anyway, besides variations of "Honest Meta" metabuse is when two or more people play for their collective wins, rather than their individual wins. Things like always saving each other n1, not inving each other, trying harder when on same team, lynching their CC, shooting each other when on different teams (so you never have to fos each other), etc.
If its only one person playing in favor of another, its not meta abuse but gamethrowing.
I think that when games are made anonymous it's incredibly obvious who some people are while other's are a complete mystery. I think that knowing your opponents strengths and weaknesses is a part of almost any competitive game. If you look at any sports league like the NBA or the NFL, the teams specifically choose strategies that will challenge the other teams weaknesses. Seeing as EM is the largest mafia site, I kind of like our tiny little competitive environment. If someone uses a really good strategy and dupes me, I'm going to remember which players did that and expect it next time. That said, if you know your own strengths and weaknesses, and are a smart player, you can use this to your advantage and flip the meta on it's head. Meta-abuse exists but it can never exist for long since the meta itself is so turbulent. If you ask me, it's not so much meta abuse as it is survival of the fittest.
However, situations like: "I wouldn't kill X, I'm their bff" or "let's lynch X cause they were maf last game" or "let's lynch/kill X because he's not one of our friends." I find these playstyle choices to be against the nature of the game.
if meta between friends that enables runners to win more consistently is acceptable play, then the game is no longer about in-game behavior but about social dynamics outside of the game.
it's not like the in-game scenario is going to make you lose your friend outside of the game (well, maybe, but very very rarely)
and what this all goes back to is that the competition itself is a sham without the ability to remove this meta, because it fundamentally changes the way the game is played, to the point where it becomes not about the game but how much 'meta' you can stack into one lobby.
if you want a real competition, you force anonymity as soon as you join the lobby. Players are assigned colors/other easy identifiables, and revealing who you are to another player should be considered cheating/OGI.
and then it becomes obvious who is communicating outside of the game and suddenly meta friendships are now either shaped through the game itself or ostensibly cheaters who know each other through outside of game comm.
oh and remove/limit GY vision.
those 2 things --> legit competition. until then, it will always be just a contest of popularity masquerading as a skill-based tournament
after caroline is tired of losing i'll vs u first to 3 wins is the greatest (me)
deletedover 9 years
the last one literally amounts to what is generally taken as cheating. the first one doesn't even need to be vio'd because it's just stupid. the second one is bribery and doesn't necessitate creating a rule that dumbass mods can misinterpret all the way to hell
