is that true? I think you, trent and pooka were against and no-one else had a strong opinion.
Which means that the majority of those who had an opinion were against it.
Consider it: either Scene's big scheme actually does skew the chances in favour of one faction. In which case it is game-breaking and should be forbidden. Breaking the balance of a game that is usually quite well balanced detracts from the fun of the game.
Or the scheme doesn't actually help the Liberals but just reduces the complexity of the game and makes it boring. In which case it isn't a good idea either.
In any case, Scene'n meta idea is bad and would make for a less fun game. And yes, I played in one where the majority agreed on such a scheme. It was boring, because there was far less discussion about the why of the candidate selection and about the voting. And guess what? The Fascists won. Which doesn't surprise me, because less discussions and less revealed reasoning means less chances of finding out who the Fascists are. Everyone can just hide behind 'Meta says so' - and that is the worst you can do for a social deduction game.
If Scene hadn't tried to promote this bad meta play before the game started, I would assume now that he is a Fascist, who wants to achieve exactly that: less discussion about candidates and votes.
And actually I can get behind trent's sentiment: I would rather not play than play in a broken, pointless game that had it's main deduction methods - nominations and vote-discussions - taken away.
Sure, that's exactly what I'm saying. I am just an asshole that is doing his best to be against the spirit of the game. This will be my last post of the game.
Good luck everyone
Please don't over-react! Scene is the only one who actually wants that stupid Meta-gaming. Joe was just asking a question. Sure, in a provocative tone. But you know these games. Provocations happen.
If you play on secrethitler.io everyone plays in meta, it's still a fun game. The winrate is listed at 53% Liberal 47% Fascist in the 8 player game. Doesn't sound particularly gamebreaking does it? In fact it's higher infomation because if you have less presidents you have more information from the deck.
I'd assume the winrate would be higher for fascists without meta play because they can manipulate the play to their advantage. I asked about meta in the sign up thread and haven't posted since.
Based on the reaction here I'm assuming one of 2 things:
1. People prefer to play without meta for greater emphasis on social deduction and 'fun'.
2. Rager and RWarehall are 2 fascist players and voting them down would vastly hurt fascists chances and the fascists are panicking
However if this government passes, Liberals need to ensure that Rager and RWarehall are tested as many times as possible as chancellors until they conflict with someone. They essentially need to be the goto chancellors/presidents to test them thoroughly.
It's the way I always play the game and I was trying to share my knowledge of the game in order to look liberal. If you don't use a standard meta you constantly have to question why initial presidents nominate who they do
So let's say Rager and RWarehall pass - does it conflict? If not is that because both are Liberal or because RWarehall is building up Liberal credit and both are facist?
I've said this previously that if you don't use a Meta, there's a high change Hitler is in initial government in order to build up Liberal creditability. Has Rager picked RWarehall because he's Hitler?
Which is EXACTLY the kind of discussions the game is made of. Why do you want to break the game? If you hate discussions that much, why do you even play a social deduction game, that is based entirely on the fun of discussions, deceit and deduction?
How about a new meta-rule. Let's agree on the rule "The Liberals Win!" ... There. All discussions avoided, a perfectly efficient game and we have won. Yay. We can stop playing.
It doesn't stop it being social deduction. It increases the amount of information to make deduction.