EPTTL Mafia XLIII - Page 57
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
Munk-E
United States672 Posts
| ||
|
Curu
Canada2817 Posts
 . | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
On August 13 2011 03:33 redFF wrote: Also i dont think a host should ever let town majority lynch unless its specifically stated in the rules at the beginning of the game, it gives town an unfair advantage. Yea, changing rules in the middle of the game is usually a big No No. Majority lynch has pros and cons for both sides, but if you want the game to be fair overall it should be used. Players getting lynched with "most vote wins" and it's a 4 person lynch in a 20 player game is just terrible, especially for Town. Majority Lynch makes sure everyone has to discuss, and some people are going to have to hop on wagons and/or consolidate their positions to get a lynch off. Of course an indecisive Town and blaming people that hammer are devastating when using Majority Lynch since Mafia can just keep escaping lynches. | ||
GMarshal
United States22154 Posts
| ||
|
OriginalName
Canada1140 Posts
| ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
On August 13 2011 04:28 Ace wrote: Yea, changing rules in the middle of the game is usually a big No No. Majority lynch has pros and cons for both sides, but if you want the game to be fair overall it should be used. Players getting lynched with "most vote wins" and it's a 4 person lynch in a 20 player game is just terrible, especially for Town. Majority Lynch makes sure everyone has to discuss, and some people are going to have to hop on wagons and/or consolidate their positions to get a lynch off. Of course an indecisive Town and blaming people that hammer are devastating when using Majority Lynch since Mafia can just keep escaping lynches. Hmm. Does such benefit apply to mini games, where each votes should carry more weight due to smaller player pool? I don't like "must be majority in order for lynch to be carried out" rules because I always worry about the possibility of town somehow failing to form majority before deadline (which can be devastating for pre-planned balance). | ||
|
Curu
Canada2817 Posts
On August 13 2011 04:28 Ace wrote: Yea, changing rules in the middle of the game is usually a big No No. Majority lynch has pros and cons for both sides, but if you want the game to be fair overall it should be used. Players getting lynched with "most vote wins" and it's a 4 person lynch in a 20 player game is just terrible, especially for Town. Majority Lynch makes sure everyone has to discuss, and some people are going to have to hop on wagons and/or consolidate their positions to get a lynch off. Of course an indecisive Town and blaming people that hammer are devastating when using Majority Lynch since Mafia can just keep escaping lynches. I actually like majority lynches a lot more but I feel like the time limit has to be extended by a lot for it to work. Everyone has to have time to properly analyze the thread, take a stance, and make their decision. In a 48 hour deadline decisions end up getting rushed to get a lynch off. I think majority lynches are fantastic when the day deadlines are like 1 week. But a lot of people already get antsy and can't stay active with 48 hour deadlines, so in this case I think deadline lynches are a bit more balanced. | ||
|
Ace
United States16096 Posts
The issue comes down to do you want people getting lynched with Most votes win, because if the Town is doing bad they will lose a lot of the time with that setup. Imagine a 12 player game where 3 are Scum and you're down to 10 players. If the 7 Townies don't consolidate on a lynch, then 3 Scum who are almost half the Town at this point can lynch easily by all just voting together. And the process repeats itself the next day. For Town and Scum, its better if people have to actually work to get a lynch off imo. It also gives you much more room for error (as Town) as stupid townies, bad players, and people that tunnel too much don't have a massive effect on the lynch. How did you balance the game without taking into account No Lynch though? Or do you mean you assume 3 mislynches for Game Over and a NL tips the balance back to Town? | ||
|
redFF
United States3910 Posts
| ||
|
Kurumi
Poland6130 Posts
On August 13 2011 04:57 redFF wrote: Yeah i think the key issue was changing the rules midgame though. Don't do that please I was against changing the rules but You guys pushed. | ||
|
redFF
United States3910 Posts
| ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
... NL tips the balance back to Town? Isn't no lynching (unless it is filled with PR roles) always bad for town? In 7-2 vanilla scenario you can win even if you make two mislynches but if you screw up and miss day 1 lynch, it'll be 6-2 by day 2 which mean you will lose if you make more than one mislynch. I should probably start having more faith in the players I guess. I do see that unlike my concerns town seem to lynch people just fine even in majority lynches.  Edit: A 12 player game where the votes get decided by 2 or 3 people really sucks. It's not like 2~3 individual do not have great influence on the majority voting either. I guess you mean majority lynch forces numerous groups to consolidate into a major voting bloc which is a good thing. I actually have not thought about implications of that before. Thanks, I'll try majority lynch out in my next mini game. | ||
|
Sevryn
698 Posts
On August 13 2011 05:09 Hesmyrr wrote: @Ace: I guess that makes sense. All-scum-rush-gambit seems risky at first but I guess WIFOM nullifies most of the dangers away. I am probably biased by mafiascum rules I got used to in the past. Isn't no lynching (unless it is filled with PR roles) always bad for town? In 7-2 vanilla scenario you can win even if you make two mislynches but if you screw up and miss day 1 lynch, it'll be 6-2 by day 2 which mean you will lose if you make more than one mislynch. I should probably start having more faith in the players I guess. I do see that unlike my concerns town seem to lynch people just fine even in majority lynches. Edit: It's not like 2~3 individual do not have great influence on the majority voting either. I guess you mean majority lynch forces numerous groups to consolidate into a major voting bloc which is a good thing. I actually have not thought about implications of that before. Thanks, will try it out in my next mini game. No lynching can be usefull if there are 4 players left and there is one mafia(obv) if you no lynch and the mafia hits someone you can take a 3v1 to a 2v1 increasing the chance you have to hit scum. | ||
|
Barundar
Denmark1582 Posts
| ||
|
Hesmyrr
Canada5776 Posts
On August 13 2011 05:31 Barundar wrote: A clear majority of players wanted to speed up the game, and for good reason. The lynches was settled ahead, and waiting the full time is just boring. The majority voting didn't even favor town, we only killed mafia after we slowed down lynches again. The thing is that with flexible day lynch, no-vote-then-ban system becomes really difficult to enforce. And unless everyone present unanimously agree to let the day end, changing the day deadline would be kind of changing the rules and would be unfair to someone who did not know of deadline change. | ||
Mig
United States4714 Posts
I agree tho that it is unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game, but this game it certainly didn't hurt the scum team. | ||
|
Kenpachi
United States9908 Posts
| ||
|
Curu
Canada2817 Posts
On August 13 2011 05:51 Kenpachi wrote: The majority lynch is what killed me though. i thought it would be beneficial but i lost because of it How? You had ample time to defend yourself. But all you posted was this: On August 12 2011 02:59 Kenpachi wrote: whatever | ||
|
Kenpachi
United States9908 Posts
On August 13 2011 05:55 Curu wrote: How? You had ample time to defend yourself. But all you posted was this: I did not feel obliged to defend myself from 1 person. I was sleeping when the bandwagon happened | ||
|
DropBear
Australia4440 Posts
You're much to dangerous to be a koala! | ||
| ||
