Mashes are extremely chaotic, but I don’t think I’ve ever felt like the end of result of one was not fairly reflective of the way it was played.
1 Like
Which is to say normal and measured and by observing things that are objectively towny and wolfy with the occasional dose of vibes. Everybody goes “oh well that’s not Un Fakeable, a wolf could do that”, and if you apply the right pressure you can also convince them that it is actively wolfy, somehow
1 Like
Right but it’s a pile of errors not a singular one?
OKAY FINE EXCLUSIVE UPDATE: I am working on a Minecraft mod that’s a mash of Avatar, D&D and Limbus Company that I’m going to force my 3 other friends to play and record
6 Likes
I’m not saying it’s not reflective of the way it was played at all, just that there’s way too much going on for any single error to be “the reason we lost”
2 Likes
in a way one could argue that beachvaporeon’s tactics were praxis
2 Likes
WOOOO YEAH
1 Like
I like that mashes don’t have 1 clear losing point or winning point. It means you can kinda have a scale of performance, could always do better, could always do worse, so having a very good mash performance feels good because its on a pretty broad spectrum.
Vs a normal mafia game you can have a relatively binary good or bad game.
3 Likes
Mashes have issues that are integral to their design which are difficult to work around
But they’re also a core and indisputable part of mafia regardless of how purist you are
Sorry you had to find out this way
2 Likes
really good mash performances are more statistically significant #stats
1 Like
Wait I misread that. I think it was relatively easy to get to as a probability considering that w!tutuu definitely had dia 8balled
yeah the pov of finding tutuu likely mafia is what I meant by that
1 Like
Uh I mean I usually don’t think that small games are lost on a single error either. There may be moments of big swing, but like in the case of an elimination going the wrong way, that’s almost never an individual fucking up, but the result of gameplay sometimes going back as far as day 1. A vigi being a jackass can absolutely have a huge impact on smaller games and be why a village lost, but a vigi’s decisions on who to shoot can also be thought of as downstream of social maneuvering. If a vigi got pocketed, sure they should have noticed, but arguably every other villager could have noticed the same thing.
1 Like
All small game losses are my fault :)
3 Likes
(I think, barring exceptional circumstances, I can look at my performance in any small game and go "here was the difference between me losing and winning, here is where I could have found the wolves and gotten them executed/gotten the misexecutions I needed. I don’t mean a literal single error, but an easy number to count)
(Mashes have too many factors for me to set win/loss as especially meaningful feedback)
1 Like
1 Like
I see all games as like this tbh
Like theres one theoretical moment or set of moments that ultimately may decide the game but every other decision made throughout the game created the situation where that decision would have to be made
2 Likes
I also agree this is smth I actively like personally
and for me this is a far healthier way to view things 