Back to Epicmafia

"meta abuse"

over 9 years

prove you know your stuff, post your definition of meta abuse and how to do it ITT

deletedover 9 years
remember that time i owned u and kerry hard when i was on rapture/revelation, dave?
deletedover 9 years
i don't really believe there's any such thing. i mean i get the arguments in this thread. dave, you've made a bunch of good points bro. it obviously makes things move a whole lot more fluidly to have a friend in game with u. but it's just something that adds another layer of intrigue to this game for me.

everything exists of an overarching meta. realise this and try to break into that overarching meta, and everything else as a result of that. sure, if u just want to win trophies, kill that some people have an easier in to the overarching meta. but then ur not really learning anything, are u? priorities bros

anyway the entire % hof board is almost certainly populated by meta abusers, if u like
over 9 years
Meta abuse is common sense. I say that to say that people are ignorant of high level mafia play, so knowing or playing at a high level will make those ignorant of it think you're cheating when the truth is you're stomping people that suck. If you don't believe this read Ruse/Cocacola/Gerryoat pastebins. People on this site display behavior in patterns and groups, and meta is all about identifying and using them to your advantage.

The problem comes in when you factor in that people play purely to grind points instead of intangibles like scumhunting or improving. Playing with either as your goal lead to behaviors that help win games which is frown upon by our pointfarming community.
deletedover 9 years
make me a sandwich
deletedover 9 years
Hibiki has left the thread
over 9 years
well i didn't wanna clog up my post with an unrelated fact, but i also didn't want people to say "BEING GOOD ISNT JUST ABOUT REMEMBERING SPECIFIC PEOPLE'S HABITS OMFG" (even though, yes, it's necessary when it comes to playing with top level players. not to mention explicitly practised by people in [pranay] and out of EM, for example, fighting games)
over 9 years
jesus hibiki just added a footnote to his forum post
over 9 years

twist says


bice says


twist says

Stupid thread. Stupid OP. Stupid question.



twist says

You can't abuse something that's practically the foundations of the game. If the mods thinks it's a big deal just limit the games you can play with the same people.


it's ok the socratic method confuses me sometimes too


I posted to clarify and also hopefully let this thread die.


why did you think the op was stupid?
over 9 years
players who have similar understandings of games are likely to succeed together because the barrier for information transferral gets weakened severely. you don't have to explain what you mean when you say "x is gf pretending to be miller/nilla" because they recognise the same things because they have the same experiences and caught the same tells as you did, or they were there when you explained it the first time. there's a whole other level of language coherency and a boatloads of interpretation that is outright skipped because the language became understood and normalised within the first few games.

it's not just about "being good at reading your friends" either. this is a factor, i could easily start to catch on to maxwell's habits, because even strong players have them, but that, frankly, is the necessary to be a top player. being good at reading people as a whole is entirely about remembering what people do and why. playing with the same person over and over again only speeds up that process for that specific person. unrelated side-point

furthermore, the process of becoming a better player happens in stages. people have to start noticing a new player's subconscious patterns. that player has to start getting caught with it to work on it, and weak players won't even notice the reason they're getting caught. none of that would happen within the space of a single round, unless they were interested in playing non-casually themselves.

there are more factors that can be discussed and investigated but i don't have to the energy left lol, this room is far too hot
over 9 years

Hibiki says


if a trophy winner wins a trophy while playing with a particular person for most of the round, of course they're going to have good stats together.



ya i was gonna bring this up but didn't wanna be //that guy//. idk how people expect players who are winning a trophy not to win a large amount of their games while running for a trophy, simply because one of their friends is in the game. should a player purposely lose 35% of the games with their friends, while trophy running to ensure no one accuses them of cheating lol
over 9 years

mist says


Hibiki says

this is totally bogus, also. being advantaged by the presence of a player can't (and shouldn't) feasibly be policed by anything other than the players' biases.

i gave the example before that maxwell (a non-friend) could be in all my games, because he's good and is likely to win for me in the games we're teammates. it could happen coincidentally. i could even invite him to all of the games. i'd sure as hell be likely to win the trophy, and he sure as hell wouldn't throw for me


So are you saying that what you were doing is exactly the same was that gerryoat and Zwink did?


i don't know what gerryoat and zwink did because i, like almost everyone posting ITT, didn't read their games. also, how could i, considering i was presenting a hypothetical?
over 9 years
yeah, sure, originally in this thread i was arguing semantics because it's frankly awful to have an accusation being readily and universally accepted as founded and true because no one really knew what it meant when it was investigated. people calling gerryoat1 a meta abuser, and gerryoat not being in a position to deny it, makes everyone believe that he was some douchebag who half-cheated to win a trophy when he really really didn't.

i want to expand now to another point that success in the presence of the same person over and over again doesn't even need to point to bias or cheating or throwing

rounds are short, and trophies are won by win streaks in these short times. a player wins a trophy on a "good round" because their win streak was better than other rounds' winstreaks (i.e. 8 day round vs 11 day round). it's the nature of trophies.

if a trophy winner wins a trophy while playing with a particular person for most of the round, of course they're going to have good stats together. in fact, it's mandatory because of trophy nature. if they don't have a good win streak with this person, they don't have the round points necessary to place top 3. it's just not feasible.

i'm not saying that any of the accused "meta abusers" as of late have been totally innocent. it's very possible (or even likely) that their plays were riddled with biases for each other that benefited each other which lead to easier win streaks.

but what i AM saying is that you cannot use the stand-alone evidence of player-with-player stats and friend-status and conclude that there was bias. it's still entirely necessary to do the nitty-gritty, churn through those games and find the things that point to bias. and the evidence you'd be looking for is entirely DIFFERENT to the evidence that you'd be looking for in rolesharers. you CANNOT take a failed cheating accusation's evidence and just say "well, it was probably just bias then".
over 9 years

Bigpock says


Sanctify says


Bigpock says

http://epicmafia.wikia.com/wiki/Metagaming

That was hard


that explains meta, doesn't explain the "abuse" factor (which doesn't exist btw) the only thing that can be added to meta is excessive metagaming. And that's what people are calling "abuse"


Wow you are bright


^_^ make sure to vote me 4 epicmafia mod. I'm in the process of thinking of a witty campaign slogan
deletedover 9 years

Hibiki says

this is totally bogus, also. being advantaged by the presence of a player can't (and shouldn't) feasibly be policed by anything other than the players' biases.

i gave the example before that maxwell (a non-friend) could be in all my games, because he's good and is likely to win for me in the games we're teammates. it could happen coincidentally. i could even invite him to all of the games. i'd sure as hell be likely to win the trophy, and he sure as hell wouldn't throw for me


So are you saying that what you were doing is exactly the same was that gerryoat and Zwink did?
deletedover 9 years

Sanctify says


Bigpock says

http://epicmafia.wikia.com/wiki/Metagaming

That was hard


that explains meta, doesn't explain the "abuse" factor (which doesn't exist btw) the only thing that can be added to meta is excessive metagaming. And that's what people are calling "abuse"


Wow you are bright
over 9 years

Bigpock says

http://epicmafia.wikia.com/wiki/Metagaming

That was hard


that explains meta, doesn't explain the "abuse" factor (which doesn't exist btw) the only thing that can be added to meta is excessive metagaming. And that's what people are calling "abuse"
deletedover 9 years

bice says


twist says

Stupid thread. Stupid OP. Stupid question.



twist says

You can't abuse something that's practically the foundations of the game. If the mods thinks it's a big deal just limit the games you can play with the same people.


it's ok the socratic method confuses me sometimes too


I posted to clarify and also hopefully let this thread die.
deletedover 9 years
over 9 years
And to clarify I want to resolve this too for now and for the future. I'm glad this thread was started.
over 9 years

Hibiki says

we can't have two or more players playing together often any more, because at some point someone says "meta abuse" and no one ever clarifies that they mean "player b was biased for player a", while both of those players are lead to believe that they were breaking the rules just by playing together


Wrong. I did it twice out of two recent cases.
over 9 years

mist says


Hibiki says

the reason so many failed cheating investigations are so readily accepted as meta abuse is because no one really knows what it means.


The fact is what's being described in this thread isn't fair. Someone without friends on-site shouldn't have to run and be disadvantaged against people who have circlejerks which make their games significantly easier. Whether you call that meta-abuse or you call it something else, it's still not okay.


it can't be an advantage unless the people you're bringing into the games are biased in your favour.
over 9 years

twist says

Stupid thread. Stupid OP. Stupid question.



twist says

You can't abuse something that's practically the foundations of the game. If the mods thinks it's a big deal just limit the games you can play with the same people.


it's ok the socratic method confuses me sometimes too
deletedover 9 years
Whats the point if discussing meta abuse when we are dealing with two users role sharing and throwing for the runner
over 9 years

mist says


Hibiki says

the reason so many failed cheating investigations are so readily accepted as meta abuse is because no one really knows what it means.


The fact is what's being described in this thread isn't fair. Someone without friends on-site shouldn't have to run and be disadvantaged against people who have circlejerks which make their games significantly easier. Whether you call that meta-abuse or you call it something else, it's still not okay.


this is totally bogus, also. being advantaged by the presence of a player can't (and shouldn't) feasibly be policed by anything other than the players' biases.

i gave the example before that maxwell (a non-friend) could be in all my games, because he's good and is likely to win for me in the games we're teammates. it could happen coincidentally. i could even invite him to all of the games. i'd sure as hell be likely to win the trophy, and he sure as hell wouldn't throw for me
over 9 years
good example of a recent trophy winner's close friend from one of the previous rounds: 'why are you voting [anon] who i play with in every game and is the main scumread this game =(, voting [anon] is stupid'