|
On July 04 2011 09:16 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2011 09:05 Incognito wrote:
Before we add more coaching, people need to read the guides in this forum and try to figure out stuff from those. There are a LOT of things you can learn by reading over, commenting on, and discussing the guides. The best way to learn is actually not by playing. Its by reading over games where you aren't playing, and trying to figure things out while discussing with someone who is also out of the game. Old games work well for this too. Then when you get back to playing, it is to apply what you learned from reading past games. Learning the principles of analysis is a lot easier when you aren't emotionally invested in a game. That's actually a really good point. When I've improved a bit and played like 10 more games, I might actually try to do this. Set up a place for discussion for 3-4 newbies and myself, none of us knowing anything about the game, and calmly try to analyse and break the game down as it goes on. Mafia as spectator sport? Fuck yeah!
You shouldn't need to improve that much to do this. I started doing it after my second game. Just try it with one of the invite-only games.
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
On July 04 2011 08:47 Incognito wrote:
I think its more that people underestimate how much time it takes to actually play this game. You can kind of get by with having little time, but you have to know what you're doing. They get all caught up into the current game they're playing, and never get around to reading/studying past games, and in general figuring stuff out. Its easy to make rules about everything and overgeneralizing behavior, when the truth is that this is quite a complex game. If you're going to make shortcuts to help you play the game, you better know when they apply and if they truly work.
I think this is absolutely the case. Playing mafia is a huge time investment, and many people join and yet never re-read the thread or look through a players(many players) posts. In my eyes mafia comes almost solely down to effort. If you're putting in effort, eventually you're going to improve. If you're playing off your gut every game though and just reading along, you're probably not going to improve game to game.
Also, every player should be keeping a spreadsheet when they play. It's a fantastic way to keep notes, links, roles and everything else neat and tidy while playing. It also allows you to see at a glance who you think is red, green, neutral at any given time.
On July 04 2011 09:16 Palmar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 04 2011 09:05 Incognito wrote:
Before we add more coaching, people need to read the guides in this forum and try to figure out stuff from those. There are a LOT of things you can learn by reading over, commenting on, and discussing the guides. The best way to learn is actually not by playing. Its by reading over games where you aren't playing, and trying to figure things out while discussing with someone who is also out of the game. Old games work well for this too. Then when you get back to playing, it is to apply what you learned from reading past games. Learning the principles of analysis is a lot easier when you aren't emotionally invested in a game. That's actually a really good point. When I've improved a bit and played like 10 more games, I might actually try to do this. Set up a place for discussion for 3-4 newbies and myself, none of us knowing anything about the game, and calmly try to analyse and break the game down as it goes on. Mafia as spectator sport? Fuck yeah!
This is a great idea Palmar. Next time there is a game starting we should set up a quicktopic and discuss the game together with other interested folks. Anyone wanting to join in the discussion can PM the topic creator and get involved. New players and more experienced players can both join in the discussion without fear of being wrong(which can happen in an actual game). As long as people are joining the discussion with the intent of improving, it should be great.
I don't think there's any need to play 10 more games before doing this. In fact, I doubt I've played many more than 10 games total. The best time to start improving is now  !
|
I definitely would be down for analyzing with a few players in a QT or something. I feel like my analysis isn't up to par. I don't count PM abuse as analysis.
|
Every game RebirthofLegend joins chances for Scum to win improve 40%, even if he is Town aligned.
|
Well I might do it for the next numbered game...
But for now, BC's game just went up.
I'm excited.
|
On July 05 2011 00:44 Ace wrote:
Every game RebirthofLegend joins chances for Scum to win improve 40%, even if he is Town aligned.
U FUKKIN MOM BRO
|
i thought ace/qatol/incog/flamewheel et al. 'discuss' the game by laughing at how noob we all are when we're in game
yeah i remember talking about this once
|
I'd like to host this game someday: American Presidents mafia. Everyone in the game is a different president, and they're divided up according to a completely arbitrary scale developed from liberal historians turning TRUE AND BLUE americans into IMMIGRANTS/COMMIES/TERRORISTS (depending on your generation).
Green presidents would include (these guys are basic townies, but I'd write up a little history revisionism for each of them anyway):
Martin Van Buren
William Henry Harrison
John Tyler
Zachary Taylor
George Bush Sr
Chester A Arthur
Ben Harrison
Calvin Coolidge
Red presidents would include:
William Howard Taft
George W. Bush Sr.
Richard Nixon
Woodrow Wilson
Lyndon B Johnson
Bill Clinton
James Madison
Blue presidents would include:
Barak Obama
Ronald Reagon
JFK
Jimmy Carter
Abe Lincoln
George Washington
SKs would include:
Thomas Jefferson
Millard Filmore (lol)
Herbert Hoover
Gerald Ford
Thats just how I would imagine it, but all the presidents would be chosen by random rather by this; otherwise rolechecks (looking at you nixon) would be too powerful.
All of the presidents that aren't green (and maybe some of the greens) will get powers that are related to their historical presidencies/predillictions. For example, Herbert Hoover would get the NUKE POWER and Lincoln/JFK might get shot on day 3. Wilson would get a Mason Circle, and Coolidge would get a post restriction. I discussed this with some cats in the IRC channel and there looked like some interest. Would anyone want to play this?
|
If you aren't going to make the roles related to the presidents, I don't see the point in assigning the names at all except maybe to add a little flavor to the game for day/night posts. And then there is always the problem of the players all nameclaiming to look for people like Nixon and Andrew Johnson (whom I would expect to be red based upon their presidencies).
Post restrictions are generally bad for games as they discourage constructive activity and tend to not be fun to play with (remember, the game should be fun for the players and not just the host).
Finally, you forgot the Roosevelts! They clearly had more important presidencies than William Henry Harrison for example!
|
The roles would be related to the names. By "all presidents would be random" i mean that the presidents alignments would be totally random so you couldn't claim Barak or JFK etc.
And you're right! My IRL name is Theodore, I don't know how I forgot Teddy R. FDR isn't bad either; I have a nephew named Frank and we make this joke all the time. The real game will have more stuff.
If I ever host this game though I'm going to need experience in hosting a game, so maybe as work settles down here I should be helping to host a game with somebody... Hmm.
The post restriction thing was a joke btw ("silent cal" coolidge).
|
On July 06 2011 21:18 tnkted wrote:
The roles would be related to the names. By "all presidents would be random" i mean that the presidents alignments would be totally random so you couldn't claim Barak or JFK etc.
And you're right! My IRL name is Theodore, I don't know how I forgot Teddy R. FDR isn't bad either; I have a nephew named Frank and we make this joke all the time. The real game will have more stuff.
If I ever host this game though I'm going to need experience in hosting a game, so maybe as work settles down here I should be helping to host a game with somebody... Hmm.
The post restriction thing was a joke btw ("silent cal" coolidge).
Well then you're going to have nameclaiming as a problem that you're going to have to resolve when you're making the setup.
I wasn't sure about the post restriction. A lot of people have been trying to put post restriction in their games recently for some reason, so it didn't seem too out of place.
|
I am generally against anything that forces players to do things unnaturally, I feel like it removes from the spirit of the game. Like not being able to publicly claim roles was stupid in harry potter. The game should of been designed to not be broken so easily.
|
Have you guys ever made a 3 way game? I'm just wondering since that would certainly make it interesting imo. 3 equally teams and last team standing wins. All 3 teams have the same amount of players, same roles and actions.
I have no clue about balance or if its even been tried... Just throwing it out there?
Would be weird if 2 team banded on the last and then went on to a 1v1 with all having the same roles, but then again you wouldn't know who to roleblock/kill first in order to ensure victory.
|
On July 07 2011 00:10 Dirkzor wrote:
Have you guys ever made a 3 way game? I'm just wondering since that would certainly make it interesting imo. 3 equally teams and last team standing wins. All 3 teams have the same amount of players, same roles and actions.
I have no clue about balance or if its even been tried... Just throwing it out there?
Would be weird if 2 team banded on the last and then went on to a 1v1 with all having the same roles, but then again you wouldn't know who to roleblock/kill first in order to ensure victory.
We've done something similar a few times. We've done 2 mafias and 1 town a few times (Ace's Mafia World, Haunted Mafia, probably more). We also did 3 kingdoms mafia which was closer to what you're talking about. We haven't done a game where every player was part of one of three teams, the teams all being identical though. It would obviously be balanced, but it would also be subject to the kingmaking problem - a faction gets to decide the winner of the game but cannot win themselves.
|
On July 07 2011 00:10 Dirkzor wrote:
Have you guys ever made a 3 way game? I'm just wondering since that would certainly make it interesting imo. 3 equally teams and last team standing wins. All 3 teams have the same amount of players, same roles and actions.
I have no clue about balance or if its even been tried... Just throwing it out there?
Would be weird if 2 team banded on the last and then went on to a 1v1 with all having the same roles, but then again you wouldn't know who to roleblock/kill first in order to ensure victory.
I played an insane game with 3 mafia factions with 5 players each, and one townie with a way overpowered role. But there were secret messages hidden throughout the thread that some of us found and we became protectors of the townie and switched alignment. Town won.
|
On July 06 2011 21:29 Qatol wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 21:18 tnkted wrote:
The roles would be related to the names. By "all presidents would be random" i mean that the presidents alignments would be totally random so you couldn't claim Barak or JFK etc.
And you're right! My IRL name is Theodore, I don't know how I forgot Teddy R. FDR isn't bad either; I have a nephew named Frank and we make this joke all the time. The real game will have more stuff.
If I ever host this game though I'm going to need experience in hosting a game, so maybe as work settles down here I should be helping to host a game with somebody... Hmm.
The post restriction thing was a joke btw ("silent cal" coolidge). Well then you're going to have nameclaiming as a problem that you're going to have to resolve when you're making the setup. I wasn't sure about the post restriction. A lot of people have been trying to put post restriction in their games recently for some reason, so it didn't seem too out of place.
I'm confused how nameclaiming could be a problem. If somebody can fakeclaim Zachary Taylor and can come up with a realistic sounding role for him (not knowing if Zach Taylor is in the setup or not), more power to them. I'm with RoL, the more stuff you can do in a mafia game the better.
|
On July 07 2011 21:06 tnkted wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2011 21:29 Qatol wrote:On July 06 2011 21:18 tnkted wrote:
The roles would be related to the names. By "all presidents would be random" i mean that the presidents alignments would be totally random so you couldn't claim Barak or JFK etc.
And you're right! My IRL name is Theodore, I don't know how I forgot Teddy R. FDR isn't bad either; I have a nephew named Frank and we make this joke all the time. The real game will have more stuff.
If I ever host this game though I'm going to need experience in hosting a game, so maybe as work settles down here I should be helping to host a game with somebody... Hmm.
The post restriction thing was a joke btw ("silent cal" coolidge). Well then you're going to have nameclaiming as a problem that you're going to have to resolve when you're making the setup. I wasn't sure about the post restriction. A lot of people have been trying to put post restriction in their games recently for some reason, so it didn't seem too out of place. I'm confused how nameclaiming could be a problem. If somebody can fakeclaim Zachary Taylor and can come up with a realistic sounding role for him (not knowing if Zach Taylor is in the setup or not), more power to them. I'm with RoL, the more stuff you can do in a mafia game the better.
While this is true, the problem is you seemed to propose a relatively large game where each president is ~50/50 to be in the game. The problem is that the player with Nixon or Andrew Johnson is effectively FORCED to lie on a nameclaim (because a mass nameclaim day 1 is an obvious move for the town) with a 50/50 chance of that president already being in the game and you being called out for your claim. And then the town bags a mafia without even having to scumhunt.
|
Radfield
Canada2720 Posts
I think in theme games with obvious roles(Harry Potter, presidents, etc.) mafia should just be given a list of safe names to claim. It effectively neutralizes any game-breaking name claims(Read: three-kingdoms mafia). Players are forced to play the actual game instead of just picking off everyone with an iffy name claim.
|
|
|
I might be interested in helping out, balancing would be difficult with all the powers that you gave anybody.
Off the top of my head: Either marine or marauder should have a limit on their shots, preferably both.
Ghost is mega OP. they can cloak every night to make themselves an invulnerable blue, mafia can't safely snipe them, and their nuke ability has the potential to kill half the mafia in a heartbeat (double edged sword though, i guess)
I don't love the siege tank role, but it's not terrible. Does it die when targeted by kp, taking the shooter down with it? if so that's ok.
queen is also OP. Not sure if the ghost and the queen balance out. Is the transfusion ability to counteract the infinite vig shots marines/marauders have? I'd like for the kp of town to be lowered and this ability removed.
Infestor: neural parasite doesn't sit well with me. with all the power roles and buffs the mafia already have, they don't need an extra vote/potential kp to work with also.
Questions: Does armored mean extra life? does kp go through armor? where do the protoss factor into this game? You can't have a starcraft themed mafia game without protoss. Third parties maybe?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
