|
Meapak then like with Majority Lynch, that is the problem with the players not the rules. If you think people can get by sheeping with ML then what do you call it with Most Votes Win when 5 votes out of 20 decides who wins? That is terrible. Majority Lynch doesn't promote lazy play, in fact it's supposed to promote activity since chances are you need to make people agree with you. If people just want to sheep and be lazy then how is having MVW going to stop them?
"Vote to kill someone" is going to exist just because thats how some people play. As long as they aren't getting lynched then anyone else is fair game.
I completely agree with Ace that no lynching is not anti town however the problem is that if several people start questioning a lynch of someone they feel is town and they ultimately force a no lynch then the rest of the town will immidiatly jump on them as mafia trying to save their buddies.
These people tend to be stupid. Dont fret over it. Some players still think that a lynch based on stupidity is better than a No Lynch, even when they know odds are the person will flip Town.
No-lynching vs. Lynching should be looked at on an entirely case-by-case scenario.
Yes. Saying "No Lynch is anti-town" is a blanket statement that can lead to a lot of stupid play by Town. If you are in MyLo then No Lynch is always a top consideration. If you know that one more round of Night Actions is going to increase your chances of catching Scum then NL is also an important option. But saying "getting rid of our chance to kill Scum via Lynch is anti-town" isn't really a good argument: Scum are also trying to use the power of the Lynch.
|
I want to run a "Put Yo Money Where Yo Mouth Is" mafia game.
Standard setup full size game (30) players. Invites will be sent out to the jury. Those in the jury can send me their scum list on a daily basis. They cannot play the game they can only send me a scum list. Winner will be the one with the highest aggregate total of correct scum team members throughout the game. Serious bragging rights here folks.
|
On August 26 2011 08:56 Ace wrote:
Meapak then like with Majority Lynch, that is the problem with the players not the rules. If you think people can get by sheeping with ML then what do you call it with Most Votes Win when 5 votes out of 20 decides who wins? That is terrible. Majority Lynch doesn't promote lazy play, in fact it's supposed to promote activity since chances are you need to make people agree with you. If people just want to sheep and be lazy then how is having MVW going to stop them?
I actually don't have a problem with a 5 out of 20 lynch. This just means both sides are playing really badly. The thing is, afterwords everyone will be forced to defend why they voted for who they did. Unlike a majority lynch game, everyone will have to explain why they voted. There are no bullshit "I did it to prevent no lynch" reasons.
I also disagree that majority lynch promotes activity. Sure it takes more votes to kill someone but the people who drive lynches (whether they're town or mafia) will be active and trying to convince people under either rule. It's the lurkers who are the problem and under ML it makes it easier to sheep because of the line of reasoning "I did it so we could lynch."
|
If 5 people vote and get someone lynched what explanation do they really need? 15 people failed to have an effect on the vote. What exactly are you looking for among the votes to catch Scum?
ML promotes activity far more than MVW. With MVW you have a ton of throw away votes and lurking. Majority of the games on this forum follow MVW and also have a problem with activity. At least with ML when your pandering to people and they refuse to get off their ass you have something to point them to. People sheep under both setups so ML isn't the issue there.
It isn't fair for people to get lynched with 4 votes in a 16 player game for either side. With ML the game goes back to politics and scumhunting instead of "lol, only 6 people were active for the last 2 days". It also stops the ridiculous "well the guy I dont want lynched is leading the votes by 6, nothing I can do now to stop it".
|
The problem I have with Majority lynching is that it's too hard to change it around. When you realize a lynch is a bad lynch, it takes much greater effort to turn it around. People can be okay with switching to a new lynch if it only takes like 8 people, but if it takes half the game, and already a bunch of people are sleeping due to time zones, the effort involved is just overwhelming and you simply cannot stop the train.
--- Edited out since it discusses an ongoing game ---
This is perhaps not a problem with the mechanic itself, but rather with the unfamiliarity of the people playing the setup. Maybe if people were to accept ML as the standard way to play, we'd get better. I actually kinda like the ML if everyone was playing with it in mind, instead of just holding hands and bandwagoning the best "WE MUST LYNCH" train.
And I stand corrected Ace, I understand now that no-lynching is not anti town. Now you just need to convince the rest of the people playing.
But one problem remains with ML. And that's the massive logistical problem of time-zones and availability. Thing is, reaching a conclusion must be done with at least 8 hours in advance of the lynch, and people on here are used to most of the discussion taking place in the last few hours of the day. If someone presents an argument at 2am in europe and a third of the game is european, it gets so much worse trying to swing the vote.
|
I'm feeling really uncomfortable talking about an ongoing game here.
|
Edited that part out, I don't think it can in any possible way affect that game, seeing as both players in question are already dead. I have however at Barundar's fair request decided to edit it out for now.
Thanks for calling it out Barundar.
|
Just a hosting question. Why are you guys making mini setups with 12 players? To me it makes way more sense to have a 11 player game, but I'm curious to know your rationales.
|
United States22154 Posts
On September 01 2011 13:30 Incognito wrote:
Just a hosting question. Why are you guys making mini setups with 12 players? To me it makes way more sense to have a 11 player game, but I'm curious to know your rationales.
F11 is a 9 player setup, 7 town vs 2 scum, assuming town is incompetent it reaches lylo day 3, 9 players feels small, so by adding three you get the same general balance and still reach lylo by day 3.
*shrugs* I haven't thought about it that much, why does an 11 player setup make more sense to you? 12 seems more... even to me :-P
|
|
|
On September 01 2011 13:30 Incognito wrote:
Just a hosting question. Why are you guys making mini setups with 12 players? To me it makes way more sense to have a 11 player game, but I'm curious to know your rationales.
I just prefer 3 scum in minis and 11 player with 3 scums isnt the most balanced.
|
On September 01 2011 13:38 redFF wrote:
WE SHOULD DO A DETHY
no.
|
On September 01 2011 13:48 OriginalName wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2011 13:30 Incognito wrote:
Just a hosting question. Why are you guys making mini setups with 12 players? To me it makes way more sense to have a 11 player game, but I'm curious to know your rationales. I just prefer 3 scum in minis and 11 player with 3 scums isnt the most balanced.
Can you explain why 11 player games with 3 mafia aren't balanced?
|
D1 8t 3m
mislynch+kill
6 town 3m
heres the kicker.
11/12 is also power role limited in 11 with 3 scum.
You really cant put a vigilante in with the normal N2 con because if they shoot wrong off of 2 mislynches its gg.
Now I could put medics or vets in but that can just add rng. Personally I dont like DT roles as TL tends to be reliant on PRs enough as is. Vigi shooting N1 can be allowed but they might hold shot anyways.
Naturally its just my opinion and how I prefer things.
|
On September 01 2011 13:36 GMarshal wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2011 13:30 Incognito wrote:
Just a hosting question. Why are you guys making mini setups with 12 players? To me it makes way more sense to have a 11 player game, but I'm curious to know your rationales. F11 is a 9 player setup, 7 town vs 2 scum, assuming town is incompetent it reaches lylo day 3, 9 players feels small, so by adding three you get the same general balance and still reach lylo by day 3. *shrugs* I haven't thought about it that much, why does an 11 player setup make more sense to you? 12 seems more... even to me :-P
Incorrect. Adding 3 does not give you the same balance. In a 9 player setup, worst case for town on day 3 is (3 v 2), which makes it lylo. In a 12 player setup, the worst case for town on day 3 is (5 v 3), in which case town is better off no lynching and seeing who the mafia shoots. Then day 4 it is (4 v 3), and lylo. Why would you lynch on day 3 when you can lynch on day 4 with more information and higher chances?
The balance equivalent of a 9 player game is an 11 player game. You add 1 mafia player and 1 town player, which keeps the difference between starting town and starting mafia players odd. This is critical. If the difference between starting mafia and starting town players is even, then you get the situation above where town gets to (5 v 3) and is better off no lynching. Given how town's usually aren't able to take full advantage of the extra 48/72 hours of discussion, I'd say creating setups in which optimal play includes a no lynch just drags out the game and doesn't provide any benefits to gameplay (except maybe condition players with the idea that no lynches are not anti-town).
The only reason in my mind that a 12 player game makes sense is if it is a night 0 start. Then day 1 opens with 8 townies v. 3 mafia (odd difference) as usual, except with potentially more information.
On September 01 2011 14:37 OriginalName wrote:
D1 8t 3m
mislynch+kill
6 town 3m
heres the kicker.
11/12 is also power role limited in 11 with 3 scum.
You really cant put a vigilante in with the normal N2 con because if they shoot wrong off of 2 mislynches its gg.
Now I could put medics or vets in but that can just add rng. Personally I dont like DT roles as TL tends to be reliant on PRs enough as is. Vigi shooting N1 can be allowed but they might hold shot anyways.
Naturally its just my opinion and how I prefer things.
A vig hit should be considered like a lynch, except better, as the mafia cannot control it as easily. A vig allows the town to get off a kill, so a mis vig should be considered to be equivalent to a mislynch. Thus, adding a vig in a 12 player game effectively gives the town 3 mislynches (2 lynches + a vig) before lylo instead of 2.
Adding a vigilante in a small game is already quite dangerous for the mafia. Furthermore, adding an extra town player removes the downside to misfiring, while maintaining all the upside. It is perfectly reasonable to expect that the town has to trade something off for using the vig hit.
Using the 11 player setup, the town trades a lynch for a vig hit, thus maintaining their 2 safe mislynches in the form of 1 mislynch and 1 misvig, which isn't bad for the town at all. There's no reason why vigs can't be used in 11 player setups.
|
|
|
redFF you have inspired me. As soon as i get my schedule worked out i'm going to start planning [T]Futurama Mafia.
Zoidberg CPR doc. Mom and her three idiots are the mafia.
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
My god, Zoidberg is the perfect CPR doc...
|
United States22154 Posts
So, a question. Who here would participate in an all smurf game? I know its been done before, but its been quite some time, and I think it has the potential to be a lot of fun.
If such a game were run, would people prefer with or without PMs?
Identity claiming would obviously be disallowed.
|
I'd do it, but only
a)without pms
b)if attempts to figure out who everybody actually is is met with a warning and then a modkill. I heard that that was a big problem in past smurf games.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/IKO80.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3ryom.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Y93Vb.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WnfRL.jpg)
