Percentages are functional, but begin to betray the spirit of a spam/slank vigi. I have yet to find an elegant implementation of the restriction though. It’s either not simple or not truly reflective of intent.
1 Like
FoL postcap idea: give zugbot admin and force it to insta delete every post a player makes after they hit X posts in that thread (set to posts in topic prior to day start + Y (postcap))
also have zugbot delete every post tutuu makes (free like hack)
4 Likes
i think it’s silly to kill people just for posting a lot, when your just stated idea was that people who post a lot can specifically be posting in one super specific way to justify it
I’m arguing for something I’m not even thaaat strongly for (I didn’t implement a spam/slank vig in FAM6 despite Chloe asking a couple times) but I don’t think they’re actively bad. Like I wouldn’t reject one but I wouldn’t go out of my way to add one either
anyone who posts more than the spamvig is eligible to be spamvigged
anyone who posts less than the slankvig is eligable to be slankvigged
1 Like
The POINT is to have a WARNING in the OP that says “WATCH OUT if you post more than 300 times you might get SHOT”
1 Like
there’s always gonna be a better target in the spamvig than someone who is actually threadstalking and being a social degenerate
And to have that warning be true and enforceable
me when im a spankvig and the redchecked wolf has the exact amount of posts i have
2 Likes
A design I like that a team I was on came up with was the slank vigi that upgrades into anti-claim which heavily incentivizes using it as an anti-claim kill at every opportunity. Previous iterations were just a like normal vig shot that could be upgraded, and too frequently claims were being ignored in favor of just doming an SPK. The slank restriction made it be used as an actual anti-claim more often while keeping it as a consistent source of KP.
2 Likes
sorry could you do me a favour and point out where that warning is in fam? i think i mustve missed it or something
I did not choose to implement itbecause (as I have stated many times) I do not feel that strongly about it being good, I just think it’s a defensible design choice and incentivizes better gameplay from the people ingame
no no the warning you know in games where there is a spamvig like fam5
FAM5 OP was written before the spamvig was added and changing it afterward would be spewy
Plus by the time the signups were up I had not really taken charge in any meaningful capacity because itw as my first mash so I was just deferring to others
fam7 role design will almost certainly involve this conversation in some way
1 Like
If anything there should be more slankvigs for mashes to avoid endgame with a lot of lowposting players and dilemmas of executing people you wolfread or people that post minimum cap everyday.
High volume posting has its own issues, but not at all comparable to the opposite and you shouldn’t be punishing people for playing the game anyway.
I think there’s a failure of communication here where I’m like… talking about broader incentive structures. I don’t care that much about Having a Spamvig or Who It Kills In Practice I just think it’s good for the game to have a nudge in the direction of “hey posting too much is bad, stay readable”
1 Like
no non-readable person really gets shot by spamvigs
there’s better targets