VFR

[Typhon126]

Hello,

I have been playing ToS for a bit over 8 months and I was wondering Can we make VFR against the rules? I understand it "works" but at 1500+Elo in ranked games and all you have to do is VFR to win, then 1500+ Elo rank players are the cancer in this community (Worse then gamethrowers) and it makes myself, along with others (Look at Shadowbeatz Video uploaded today May 22 2017. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Su1GOxeAevI ) not want to play. And its not even in that Elo level, it happens in almost any game that is ranked. Make a rule against it. Something along the lines of "If you vote up a player with no reasonable suspicion is against the rules". It's not fun and it makes people not want to play this game anymore.


Thanks,
Typhon126

[Arckas]

Moved to appropriate section.

[alex1234321]

The thing is that if they make a rule against it, it would be hard to tell what would be reportable and what would not be. Would claiming at the end because it is necessary be reportable? And what about even claiming a role on the stand?

I could see where you are coming from, but the problem is how effective VFR is rather than VFR itself. If the rolelist was changed so that there were more Random Town slots for evils to claim roles in, then VFR would be largely useless.

[mdb1023]

why would you make a dominating strategy against the rules!?

[FrankLeeAwful]

Hello,

I have been playing ToS for a bit over 8 months and I was wondering Can we make VFR against the rules? I understand it "works" but at 1500+Elo in ranked games and all you have to do is VFR to win, then 1500+ Elo rank players are the cancer in this community (Worse then gamethrowers) and it makes myself, along with others (Look at Shadowbeatz Video uploaded today May 22 2017. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Su1GOxeAevI ) not want to play. And its not even in that Elo level, it happens in almost any game that is ranked. Make a rule against it. Something along the lines of "If you vote up a player with no reasonable suspicion is against the rules". It's not fun and it makes people not want to play this game anymore.


Thanks,
Typhon126

We're not, at all, the "cancer of the community," and we're not worse than gamethrowers, which, news flash, are actually breaking the rules.

And no, VFR is never "all you have to do to win."

If you're not actually informed on the topic, it's best to stay silent.

[presidentjeb]

What do you even define as VFR?
There's two definitions I've come across:
A. starting at a placement in the rolelist and voting "numbers" up as a threat to lynch them unless they claim.
B. pinpointing a suspicious figure and voting them up as a threat to lynch them unless they claim.
Town of Salem is all about deception and manipulation, so it makes no sense to ban B, the equivalent of standard interrogation tactics.
While A is less defensible as a strategic maneuver, it's also inefficient. Not only does town waste trials on clearly innocent people, but all you need to do to negate the strategy is lead the vote by choosing what number in the rolelist you begin with (hopefully one far away from yourself).
Even B can be exploited by evils; again, all you have to do is take charge of who town suspects, by talking. When I'm evil, I use VFR to smoke out important town roles so that I can make more informed decisions at night.

Because both sides stand a fair chance of using the strategy to their advantage, I don't really see a problem with it. If it's the cause of all your losses, you should consider being more vocal in the daytime to steer the voting away from your faction.

[Typhon126]

Hello,

I have been playing ToS for a bit over 8 months and I was wondering Can we make VFR against the rules? I understand it "works" but at 1500+Elo in ranked games and all you have to do is VFR to win, then 1500+ Elo rank players are the cancer in this community (Worse then gamethrowers) and it makes myself, along with others (Look at Shadowbeatz Video uploaded today May 22 2017. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Su1GOxeAevI ) not want to play. And its not even in that Elo level, it happens in almost any game that is ranked. Make a rule against it. Something along the lines of "If you vote up a player with no reasonable suspicion is against the rules". It's not fun and it makes people not want to play this game anymore.


Thanks,
Typhon126

We're not, at all, the "cancer of the community," and we're not worse than gamethrowers, which, news flash, are actually breaking the rules.

And no, VFR is never "all you have to do to win."

If you're not actually informed on the topic, it's best to stay silent.

You are Most certainly worse than "Gamethrowers" and are in fact the "Cancer" of this ToS community. You take a game that is supposed to be skill based and using your head and throw that away. "I'm going to vote one for a role for no fucking reason, and if anyone CC's then he'll hang." Yeah that's using your brain. And it takes no skill at all to play then. Your the kind of person who doesn't understand why this is a problem, because you are the problem. It's best to stay silent yourself bud, since you are the Problem.

Now that us adults can talk that actually know what we are talking about this needs to be a rule. If some one says "Lets vote 1 on day 1 for a role" or "Lets voteup whoever just to get a role out of then" and they vote them up that should be against the rules. It takes ZERO skill to play like this. Evils don't stand a chance. Again It's as SIMPLE as making it against the rules. "IF you vote up a player with no reasonable suspicion for a role". Now how can you sort if just voting someone up is VFR or not? Easily, this is how you determine it. If some says "Vote (any number) for a role" then its VFR. IF someone asks along the lines of "13 Role?" and they respond and it seems sketchy or doesn't fit, or their will doesn't add up then its not VFR. It's as simple as that. If they don't respond after someone has asked them IN MAIN CHAT (So all players can see, and no one lies about "I whispered him and he didn't respond") then you can vote him/her up as they are SUS at that point.

There you go, I showed how you can clarify if its VFR or if its not VFR. SO please ToS do something about this as it makes players who use their brain, Unlike MuresMalum here, not want to play anymore.

Thanks

[Typhon126]

Again I highly Urge you guys to watch the video I linked. It shows VFR in its finest as well as how it Ruins the game for all.

[chitownmvp01]

The thing is that if they make a rule against it, it would be hard to tell what would be reportable and what would not be. Would claiming at the end because it is necessary be reportable? And what about even claiming a role on the stand?

I could see where you are coming from, but the problem is how effective VFR is rather than VFR itself. If the rolelist was changed so that there were more Random Town slots for evils to claim roles in, then VFR would be largely useless.

If there were more RT slots, I would still use VFR. If there are 4 TP claims, at least one still likely is scum. VFR can also be used to find discrepancies in wills between multiple players. There is no way to make VFR bannable because it is a legal strategy and banning it posses a question like this:

What if the town is on the cusp of losing majority and has no leads from TIs? They need to lynch, but will they get reported for it?

Do to posing questions like that, VFR will never be banned. Try leading VFR. It's fun. Personally, I'm a proponent of VFR.

[MisaTange]

The additional problem is when two investigatives are dead n1. Especially in passive towns, where there is no reason to suspect anyone as well as no reason not to suspect anyone because both Town and scum are fluffing and saying nothing. The RT and Any roles are swingy and hard to be sure that the RT and Any are additional investigatives. What then? What skill is there for "waiting for investigatives" and "pushing a button" where literally all mafia incarnations depend on day activity rather than your night ability?

[HereThereEverywhere]

"Guys, I think 14 is susp. 14, role?"
"I'm not telling, I don't want to die"
"Alright then, vote up 14"
"REPORT FOR VFRING!!!!!!!!"
Anything can be classified as VFR if you stretch the definition enough. Besides, the problem isn't VFR, it's how effective VFR is. You can easily CC a BG claim when there's one flat out TP slot and that's it, but if there are two or three RT slots then the BG claim is much more believable.

[FrankLeeAwful]

Hello,

I have been playing ToS for a bit over 8 months and I was wondering Can we make VFR against the rules? I understand it "works" but at 1500+Elo in ranked games and all you have to do is VFR to win, then 1500+ Elo rank players are the cancer in this community (Worse then gamethrowers) and it makes myself, along with others (Look at Shadowbeatz Video uploaded today May 22 2017. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Su1GOxeAevI ) not want to play. And its not even in that Elo level, it happens in almost any game that is ranked. Make a rule against it. Something along the lines of "If you vote up a player with no reasonable suspicion is against the rules". It's not fun and it makes people not want to play this game anymore.


Thanks,
Typhon126

We're not, at all, the "cancer of the community," and we're not worse than gamethrowers, which, news flash, are actually breaking the rules.

And no, VFR is never "all you have to do to win."

If you're not actually informed on the topic, it's best to stay silent.

You are Most certainly worse than "Gamethrowers" and are in fact the "Cancer" of this ToS community. You take a game that is supposed to be skill based and using your head and throw that away. "I'm going to vote one for a role for no fucking reason, and if anyone CC's then he'll hang." Yeah that's using your brain. And it takes no skill at all to play then. Your the kind of person who doesn't understand why this is a problem, because you are the problem. It's best to stay silent yourself bud, since you are the Problem.

Now that us adults can talk that actually know what we are talking about this needs to be a rule. If some one says "Lets vote 1 on day 1 for a role" or "Lets voteup whoever just to get a role out of then" and they vote them up that should be against the rules. It takes ZERO skill to play like this. Evils don't stand a chance. Again It's as SIMPLE as making it against the rules. "IF you vote up a player with no reasonable suspicion for a role". Now how can you sort if just voting someone up is VFR or not? Easily, this is how you determine it. If some says "Vote (any number) for a role" then its VFR. IF someone asks along the lines of "13 Role?" and they respond and it seems sketchy or doesn't fit, or their will doesn't add up then its not VFR. It's as simple as that. If they don't respond after someone has asked them IN MAIN CHAT (So all players can see, and no one lies about "I whispered him and he didn't respond") then you can vote him/her up as they are SUS at that point.

There you go, I showed how you can clarify if its VFR or if its not VFR. SO please ToS do something about this as it makes players who use their brain, Unlike MuresMalum here, not want to play anymore.

Thanks

Keep the personal attacks to a minimum, please, and exercise a modicum of respect for your fellow players.

You're not helping your case any.

[Typhon126]

"Guys, I think 14 is susp. 14, role?"
"I'm not telling, I don't want to die"
"Alright then, vote up 14"
"REPORT FOR VFRING!!!!!!!!"
Anything can be classified as VFR if you stretch the definition enough. Besides, the problem isn't VFR, it's how effective VFR is. You can easily CC a BG claim when there's one flat out TP slot and that's it, but if there are two or three RT slots then the BG claim is much more believable.

If you read my previous Comment you would see that This would NOT be reportable. PLEASE read THE COMMENTS before talking out of your ass.

[mdb1023]

You are Most certainly worse than "Gamethrowers" and are in fact the "Cancer" of this ToS community.

really? REALLY? I want you to take a moment to think about what you just said. People who VFR-which, mind you, is a playing to win strategy, are worse than people who purposefully lose the game just to make people mad. People who are playing to win are worse than people who will join a game just to ruin people's day? REALLY? You need to get your priorities straight, my friend. If VFR is honestly worse than gamethrowing to you, then I encourage you to leave ranked and play custom or all any; there's plenty of gamethrowers there so I'm sure you'll have a better time than playing with people who VFR.

You take a game that is supposed to be skill based and using your head and throw that away. "I'm going to vote one for a role for no fucking reason, and if anyone CC's then he'll hang." Yeah that's using your brain. And it takes no skill at all to play then. Your the kind of person who doesn't understand why this is a problem, because you are the problem. It's best to stay silent yourself bud, since you are the Problem.

in what world is VFR not skill based? Here's the way I play as town: If there are no leads on the first day (and no survivor claims), I start a wagon on someone who I think is acting scummy and vote them up to see what they claim. If they don't claim, they're scum and we hang them (or a gamethrower and we report them). If they do claim, we vote them innocent and get someone else who I think is suspicious. That way, we know what they're claim is and can lock it in. Then, down the line when townies have died and the role list is narrowed down, I look back at those claims and figure out who is lying based on the available space on the rolelist. If you honestly think none of that requires "using my brain," then you're not exactly using your brain, either.
Also, great mindset you have there: "Your the kind of person who doesn't understand why this is a problem, because you are the problem." first of all, wrong "your," second of all: that's the exact mindset that people like Donald Trump have. "stay quiet because you're the problem and I don't want to hear your side of the argument at all" is extremely close-minded and weak on your part.

If some one says "Lets vote 1 on day 1 for a role" or "Lets voteup whoever just to get a role out of then" and they vote them up that should be against the rules. It takes ZERO skill to play like this. Evils don't stand a chance.

I just explained in the above paragraph why it does, indeed, take skill to play this way. If evils "don't stand a chance," then maybe poor players like you evils need to learn how to play better.

Again It's as SIMPLE as making it against the rules. "IF you vote up a player with no reasonable suspicion for a role". Now how can you sort if just voting someone up is VFR or not? Easily, this is how you determine it. If some says "Vote (any number) for a role" then its VFR.

It's really NOT as simple as making it against the rules. At all. Take the following example:
Jailor jails player B and player B claims medium. Two days later, town finds out that it's a janitor game. The jailor might know who the janitor is, but he could very well be a medium and he doesn't want to risk executing him in case he's actually a medium. So, he says in chat "Let's get player b voted up and see what they claim." This technically wouldn't fall under what you seem to consider "VFR" (which, to you, seems like you just want to eliminate the random aspect of it), but would that, under your rule, be reportable?
It's not as simple as "if someone says vote up player b for their role then it's against the rules," because it you don't know WHAT Player B knows! Maybe the person starting the vote is an invest and wants to see what player b claims before outing themselves. Maybe they're a sheriff who found mafia. There's far too many variables to make a rule like this.


You know, I used to be just like you in this regard. I used to HATE VFR, but then I realized that my elo was getting too low, so I decided to do something about it. I now lead the town in VFR when there's no leads, and sometimes we win, sometimes we lose, but I win more often than I used to. Shadowbeatz is a good player, but that doesn't mean you have to take his word as gospel. Not all good players use the same strategy.

[DragonClaw66]

VFR is a perfectly fine tactic. As said many times before, it's the rolelist that needs to be changed. There isn't enough claimspace. What I see as a problem is metagaming.

[Magnasword2]

Also, great mindset you have there: "Your the kind of person who doesn't understand why this is a problem, because you are the problem." first of all, wrong "your," second of all: that's the exact mindset that people like Tormental and Donald Trump have. "stay quiet because you're the problem and I don't want to hear your side of the argument at all" is extremely close-minded and weak on your part.

You can quit disparaging my friend thanks. Ever thought the reason people don;t want to hear your arguments is that you make a fool out of yourself by insulting people in your points? Or that you just suck at it?

Also: Attacking someone who can't come here to fight back. Classy.

[LevinSnakesRise]

(So after finally digging through today's threads because I asked for links but none were given by anyone)

Moderator Message: Friendly reminder about Rule 8;

8. Personal attacks at a general audience or specific member(s) are not allowed, nor tolerated, including outside drama.

I personally think it's beating a dead horse by using the same "Tormental this" and "Tormental that" logic in almost every thread since the whole thing went down. While he may be banned from the forums, that doesn't mean we can sit here and shit-talk him. The rule still applies (yes, even to Tormental. He is a user (albeit banned)). I don't want to see further comments about Tormental from this point forward in such a similar manner, or I will start handing out warnings where necessary. Let's let the horse be.

Also, if you can't be nice, don't say anything at all. Applies to everyone as well.


Thanks.

[mdb1023]

Fine. I was using him as an example for the sake of the argument, but whatever. If it's against the rules it's afainst the rules. Edited the post to take out the mention of Tormental.

For the record, I don't bring him up in "almost every thread"