|
On January 08 2012 19:51 wherebugsgo wrote:
In addition, I completely disagree over having qualified for spam vig, and for syllo qualifying for the acronym vig. There's an inherent bias in the host allowing a person to shoot someone else on certain grounds because the host already knows the alignment of the player in question. Thus, there's already a subconscious bias that will cause a tendency toward the host allowing the player to take a shot on a mafia player, whereas on a town player it's less likely.
In Real Time Mafia where I put in Lurker vigis and other mechanics that involved punishing lurkers I agreed with what you just said and had foolishness (A neutral third party) make a list of all the "lurking" players in the game to avoid that issue. So I do agree with you, as opposed to the host making purely neutral decisions he might sway one way or the other to help the losing team at the time.
|
On January 08 2012 19:52 syllogism wrote:Show nested quote +Because of this absurd roleblocking result, I'm not sure a balance complaint is reasonable unless you want to focus on the excessive volatility which is quite sensible. I don't understand. The roleblocks made sense in light of what we knew; Sheth had been very suspicious of Kita and so had been GM. Are you suggesting we shouldn't have role blocked anyone? Blocking bum on n5 was a mistake as by that point kita should have gambled but considering his heroic efforts otherwise, can't fault him for that. Even keeping some of the people a lot of townies were suspicious of (RoL) doesn't seem too bad
At no point did I ever really feel that I was at risk for getting lynched to be honest. I have been in way hotter situations than that. But I do agree, I played rather poorly the first few days but I don't feel I did anything that I couldn't reasonably justify as being from town motivations. The big example is after I shot BC and L was trying to trash me for it, after my push on BC failed I wasn't going to let him live if I could prevent it.
When I wrote my case I put that I was hesitant because I didn't want to risk making BC talk and the lynch failing, thus disabling my trigger and failing to kill BC. But for some reason BC wrote 4 post AFTER my analysis, so I could still kill him. After that I think Chezinu/Sheth were the only other two who I could of applied it to.
|
Just want to say that I sent in my hit at a point where wherebugsgo had 9.84% of all posts in the thread. 10% is a lot in a 20 player game I think.
|
I didn't really mean to imply that you played poorly, I don't really pay attention to that as scum, especially when the person in question isn't getting us lynched. I just think that there were enough townies suspicious of you for you to be a realistic lynch candidate and your inactivity could have made defending difficult. Unfortunately you shooting a townie at night apparently confirmed you as town to some.
|
On January 08 2012 22:58 syllogism wrote:
I didn't really mean to imply that you played poorly, I don't really pay attention to that as scum, especially when the person in question isn't getting us lynched. I just think that there were enough townies suspicious of you for you to be a realistic lynch candidate and your inactivity could have made defending difficult. Unfortunately you shooting a townie at night apparently confirmed you as town to some.
Yeah, this is where I think WBG erred. You thought your ##Hit on foolishness would of gotten you way more heat then I think it did. Generally if you killed someone the town was accepting you as a real vigilante and since you put heat on foolishness I don't think it would of been seen as bad as you think it would of been.
|
On January 08 2012 22:56 prplhz wrote:
Just want to say that I sent in my hit at a point where wherebugsgo had 9.84% of all posts in the thread. 10% is a lot in a 20 player game I think.
no, not when 5 are dead and the thread was completely inactive.
Also, I counted myself, I believe it was 8%. 60 posts of 760 is 7.8, not 9.84 (unless I've miscounted)
On January 08 2012 23:50 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:Show nested quote +On January 08 2012 22:58 syllogism wrote:
I didn't really mean to imply that you played poorly, I don't really pay attention to that as scum, especially when the person in question isn't getting us lynched. I just think that there were enough townies suspicious of you for you to be a realistic lynch candidate and your inactivity could have made defending difficult. Unfortunately you shooting a townie at night apparently confirmed you as town to some. Yeah, this is where I think WBG erred. You thought your ##Hit on foolishness would of gotten you way more heat then I think it did. Generally if you killed someone the town was accepting you as a real vigilante and since you put heat on foolishness I don't think it would of been seen as bad as you think it would of been.
I was ready to shoot him, but I received some disagreement from my team so I chose not to. Normally as scum I'm not afraid of doing bold things, simply because the unknown is unknown and I feel like I can manipulate things to the way I want them to be.
That's what I did in the minis where I was lone scum, and that's how I would've played it here had I shot Foolishness as well. The setup gave me some pause, though, I have to admit.
If I had to do it over I'd definitely just ignore the setup and do whatever the hell I wanted to do, because if the setup punishes my play, it would happen no matter how cautious I could try to be. Either I'd get lynched on meta grounds or I'd get shot because the setup allows townies to shoot disruptive people.
|
kitaman27
United States9244 Posts
On January 08 2012 15:33 Ver wrote:
The biggest WTF part of the game was the roleblocker. Let's look at what the roleblocker did specifically.
N1:
roleblock Gmarshal (shooting RoL , being shot himself anyway by other vigis)
N2:
roleblock Foolishness (shooting L, shot by mafia)
N3: Roleblock Sheth (shooting Meapak , would have committed suicide too)
N5: Roleblock Bum (shooting RoL )
Basically mafia roleblocks always hit the mark except the no shot/no lynch cycle and over the course of the game saved 4 townies and 1 mafia from death! Some of the roleblocks made sense (foolishness), while others were bizarre (gmarshal).
GM was roleblocked because he was essentially the only person that had declared he was shooting. Additionally, if he promised a shot and failed to follow through, he would be the target of day two discussion and possible vig shots. Sheth was roleblocked because he strongly hinted that he was shooting me. The only other alternative was Meapak, who had just subbed in. Chez hadn't posted in three days and meapak never had time to share his reads, so there was no indication he would shoot syllo. bum being roleblocked was due to the fact that he was the only vig alive. I felt that if he honestly wanted RoL to die over me at night, then being roleblocked wouldn't change his mind during the day. In addition, if I was shot, then it would never give me a chance to post the fake notes (which took forever -_-)
Blocking 3 town shots in exchange for 1 mafia life seems like it was a good trade and not blocking certain players that indicate they were shooting would rely on bad town play. The risk of losing 25% of your team doesn't seem worth the potential extra town death.
Roles that rely on host interpretation are always tricky since they are not clear cut, yet they drastically impact the result of the game.
Another problem was that all of the triggers in the game could be abused. Any vig at any time could role claim, force all the remaining players to activate the trigger, and then shoot as a normal vig at night. They could be roleblocked, but in a game where every town is a vig, I can see how the roleblocker would get overwhelmed pretty quickly.
The syllo shot counter-claim was essentially a way to get rid of my shot that all townies were supposed to have. We knew shots could overlap and I really wanted to distract from the fact that Sheth was roleblocked when he clearly intended to shoot me. I suppose I could have claimed one of the mafia shots or the unclaimed town vig shots. The problem was that our shots would have been poor vig shots and GGQ/Wiggles would open up questioning to why I didn't shoot someone I had thought was actual scum. I would have liked to have been able to claim it before the deadline, but I really did end up getting home later than I had planned. I knew I was already in a poor position, with Meapak being confirmed town if I didn't counter-claim, RoL already providing proof of his shot and being the target of the failed day 3 mislynch, and bum already being considered protown by most players.
Thanks for hosting Ver, Incognito, Qatol.
|
I thought town played decently well. The few people that were inactive weren't big blips on my radar (aside from Sheth) and I actually liked the fact that people weren't spamming up the thread for once cause of the holidays. I DO think the kill on WBG was valid given the trigger of the role being "too spammy". Even from day 1 I was thinking WBG was talking too much about everything and not really saying/committing to anything. I would have shot him (which I wanted to) but I could only shoot people who lied/misrepresented things.
I just want to ask L what the point of his "GM was lying" topic about? It made me go from ok he's pretty townie to hmm...scummy...
Thanks for hosting Ver, Qatol, Incog! Would play again!
|
I think he was trying to push the eventual RoL lynch? I mean, they had to get some use out of stopping GM from shooting RoL, so why not push the person in subject? If RoL flipped town, it makes L look right, and if L flips scum it makes RoL look bad. This was why I opted for L over RoL, because RoL flipping doesn't tell us much, and I felt pretty good about L being scum.
Hence, my moral dilemma in thinking RoL could actually be scum :X sorry 
I think after the no-lynch and meapak replaced in, town got it's shit together. I think there could have been a few more misses.
|
On January 09 2012 05:26 bumatlarge wrote:I think he was trying to push the eventual RoL lynch? I mean, they had to get some use out of stopping GM from shooting RoL, so why not push the person in subject? If RoL flipped town, it makes L look right, and if L flips scum it makes RoL look bad. This was why I opted for L over RoL, because RoL flipping doesn't tell us much, and I felt pretty good about L being scum. Hence, my moral dilemma in thinking RoL could actually be scum :X sorry I think after the no-lynch and meapak replaced in, town got it's shit together. I think there could have been a few more misses.
Yeah but just the simple fact that he was suddenly 100% sure about GM lying with no evidence to back up that logic (in fact all the logical evidence pointed to GM NOT needing to lie) was pretty telling for me. Notice how he never responded to the point of "why would GM lie if he posted his hit AFTER the deadline was over thus making the "he was scared it would affect the mafia decision" incorrect?"
I dunno, I feel like it was bad play on his part, like there was miscommunication between the block, what happened afterwards, and what the plan on how to explain shit was.
|
I will echo Ver's sentiment that this game was very hard for us to balance. We spent a lot of time talking it over, but it's just too hard to predict exactly how things will shake out with this much KP in the game. I'm still not entirely sure that all of the roles worked exactly the way we had hoped they would (and we debated a LOT about whether some roles should be in the game or not), and we didn't expect people to roleclaim and then tell everyone else to intentionally trigger the shot condition (in fact, we had a talk about forbidding it when bum brought it up in the thread, but we didn't want to meddle too much).
One mistake I think the mafia made is they were too afraid of triggering someone's shot. They went out of their way to make sure that under no circumstances could they be shot by the trigger vigis they knew about. This caused them to change the way they played the game and it stuck out. The problem with this style of play is that townies will naturally trigger the conditions in some circumstances. You shouldn't be afraid to trigger these abilities too as long as you're in a crowd of townies. It's only when you're the only one who triggers a shot that you should be worried.
Also, I absolutely hated kita's claimed shot on syllogism. I thought he was going to win the game before that, but it stuck out as being really weird because he hadn't said anything about shooting syllogism before that. Plus Meapak had called a shot on Syllogism beforehand, which made it even weirder that kita would also shoot him (he could blame this on sleeping, but it's just one more thing that adds to the case).
On the town's side, I think they used their shots too early. In a game like this, you should think about your reads more. Using your vigi hit on night 1 or night 2 is usually a mistake once you find out that you aren't the only vigi in the game (and GMarshal's roleclaim and the discussion of triggers should have tipped you off). The mafia would have stood no chance if this had happened.
In particular, I think the vigis who suicided if they shot townies played way too aggressively. VisceraEyes, there was no reason for you to shoot GMarshal on Night 1, even if he did appear mafia to you. The town probably would have lynched him on day 2 (though actually BC shot him too - using his hit too early as I mentioned above). They didn't have a better target at the time. Even if GMarshal flips red, it still probably results in a townie dying because the town didn't really have any leads on any of the mafia at that point. The same argument applies to (but is weaker for) GGQ shooting wiggles and GMarshal shooting RoL.
|
We actually didn't discuss the topic of avoiding triggers and I know I didn't intentionally try to avoid anything. My mafia play always looks like that, which obviously isn't great. I suppose WBG did change his play somewhat.
I also assumed intentionally triggering them would be forbidden so I didn't even bother asking Ver about it. I expected meeting the requirements to be much harder based on my previous experiences with the liar vig.
|
On January 09 2012 06:10 syllogism wrote:
We actually didn't discuss the topic of avoiding triggers and I know I didn't intentionally try to avoid anything. My mafia play always looks like that, which obviously isn't great. I suppose WBG did change his play somewhat.
I think that was one of the bigger arguments brought up against L also.
|
kitaman27
United States9244 Posts
On January 09 2012 06:06 Qatol wrote:
One mistake I think the mafia made is they were too afraid of triggering someone's shot. They went out of their way to make sure that under no circumstances could they be shot by the trigger vigis they knew about. This caused them to change the way they played the game and it stuck out. The problem with this style of play is that townies will naturally trigger the conditions in some circumstances. You shouldn't be afraid to trigger these abilities too as long as you're in a crowd of townies. It's only when you're the only one who triggers a shot that you should be worried.
The only trigger we knew about was lying. The rest we were in the dark about, so if there were some we avoided, it wasn't because we had knowledge of the roles. We knew about the apathetic vig by day two, but activating that trigger wouldn't have helped in any way.
On January 09 2012 06:06 Qatol wrote:
Also, I absolutely hated kita's claimed shot on syllogism. I thought he was going to win the game before that, but it stuck out as being really weird because he hadn't said anything about shooting syllogism before that. Plus Meapak had called a shot on Syllogism beforehand, which made it even weirder that kita would also shoot him (he could blame this on sleeping, but it's just one more thing that adds to the case).
Do you think there was a better shot I could have claimed? I hadn't mentioned wiggles or ggq much, so it would be just as weird if I had shot them. The mafia shots were mostly pro-town players or people who shot scum, so they were out of the question as well. If I claim to not have shot yet, that forces bum and me to shoot night four with only a single rber, which would out my claim as being fake in most situations. I could claim roleblock for the rest of the game, but that allows bum's shot to go through. If anything, I wish it would have been set up better or that we never got to a day four.
|
I might have counted your pregame posts too wherebugsgo.
|
Man me and sandroba had a whole "does he look like a bitch?" speech planned out to use our day shot and you Mafia bastards killed us  .
|
Oh yeah, lol that was dissapointing, not getting to use it =(
|
I just want to ask L what the point of his "GM was lying" topic about? It made me go from ok he's pretty townie to hmm...scummy... Because our original plan was to have our RB stay up until the deadline, f5 the shit out of the page as the time came up, then stay on GM till he crumbed he was shooting a townie, then switch off onto someone else with a pre-written pm message to save time.
Then we didn't.
So I operated most of that day thinking that someone was lying through their ass about who hit who.
|
My own experience:
I think playing the traitor in this setup is basically impossible. My plan was to argue about useless stuff and try to derail town, while making myself known to the mafia. Both L and Syllogism were very obvious scum on day 1, calling syllogism town repeatedly was actually my way of trying to communicate to the mafia team that I was the traitor. I later heard they still thought about shooting me night one, I guess for the strawman argument against L.
But seriously, as traitor I HAVE to play scummy, because otherwise the mafia will kill me (they almost did), and yet I have to dodge the lynch, at least until day 2-3. I was going to claim cop this game (I was going to claim an innocent check on L), which would have given the mafia a perfect opportunity to get me into their team, as they knew there were no cops (I did not know this, just calling a scum town with a cop check should be good enough to tell them I'm traitor). However, with a ton of vigilantes in the game, one of them is bound to just shoot someone who is forced to play scummy, which is what happened.
I seriously think the change to chaoser's role is really bad addition to the original Ace role. The thing about misrepresenting is just complete and utter bullshit, because it's punishing good scum play. I successfully created a shit side-track discussion and got punished for it.
About the setup:
Town has waaaayyyy too much KP. For those that don't get this, a vigilante shot is the best kill town has, assuming it's held by a competent player. In a normal 20 player game, that has maybe... one vigilante, town controls 2kp (lynch and shot), and mafia controls 2kp per cycle. In the end, the vigilante usually will have claimed (and gotten blocked) or died, and mafia probably ends up with more than half the kills in the game on their behalf
In this game, Town killed like 10 players or something? That's simply way too high. I only managed to figure out two mafia on day one (I almost sent in a list with syllo, L, foolishness and prplhz), but it's still enough so a bunch of gung-ho vigilantes should've chosen their shots better. L was painfully obvious as scum.
I mean, in a game that punishes bad play, it's weird town can get away with so many bad vigilante shots and still win the game. Vigilantes are stupidly powerful roles, and mafia can only counterclaim hits so long. I am a big fan of vigilantes because they put responsibility into the hands of town, but not to the point where they help town immensely.
Don't get me wrong, I liked the game and I would certainly play again. however, I would just get rid of all the damn triggers, all they do is infuriate people, and most of them are very dependent on how people play. I would argue that normal setups punish bad play much more than this one, and certainly incognito's setup in XLVIII did much more to punish bad play than this setup.
The only reason mafia came even close to winning was because town shots were really, really bad for the most part. Credit should go where it's due. Chaoser did a good job, prplhz, foolishness and meapak too.
I don't like it when people forget there are two teams in mafia, one of those teams is mafia, and this game really fucked mafia over. With triggers that stopped mafia from playing well (sidetracking town, destroying discussion, spamming, and in general being dicks), and a bunch of vigilantes mafia would've had to start counterclaiming from day 2, it pushed mafia into a corner.
I love the concept of creating a game specifically designed to counter bad play, I just don't think this was quite it. Some parts were cool (vigilantes, despite being op, are such a great role).
Mafia fucked up, and if you read this and think "man Palmar thinks mafia didn't stand a chance", then you're misunderstanding me. I'm pointing out a slight flaw in an otherwise good game, mafia just had less chance to win than usual.
|
On January 09 2012 17:21 L wrote:Show nested quote +I just want to ask L what the point of his "GM was lying" topic about? It made me go from ok he's pretty townie to hmm...scummy... Because our original plan was to have our RB stay up until the deadline, f5 the shit out of the page as the time came up, then stay on GM till he crumbed he was shooting a townie, then switch off onto someone else with a pre-written pm message to save time. Then we didn't. So I operated most of that day thinking that someone was lying through their ass about who hit who.
I tried to change the RB but I was informed by Ver like a day later when I asked that the action had not been changed because it had been sent in too late.
Honestly we should've never roleblocked GM to begin with, the chance of him shooting kita was so low it was not worth considering. That was our biggest mistake.
Beyond that, I made the mistake of not day vigging Foolishness. I don't know what you guys did after that, but I'm sure there are things we could've done differently outside those two things as well.
On January 09 2012 18:36 Palmar wrote:
My own experience:
I think playing the traitor in this setup is basically impossible. My plan was to argue about useless stuff and try to derail town, while making myself known to the mafia. Both L and Syllogism were very obvious scum on day 1, calling syllogism town repeatedly was actually my way of trying to communicate to the mafia team that I was the traitor. I later heard they still thought about shooting me night one, I guess for the strawman argument against L.
But seriously, as traitor I HAVE to play scummy, because otherwise the mafia will kill me (they almost did), and yet I have to dodge the lynch, at least until day 2-3. I was going to claim cop this game (I was going to claim an innocent check on L), which would have given the mafia a perfect opportunity to get me into their team, as they knew there were no cops (I did not know this, just calling a scum town with a cop check should be good enough to tell them I'm traitor). However, with a ton of vigilantes in the game, one of them is bound to just shoot someone who is forced to play scummy, which is what happened.
I seriously think the change to chaoser's role is really bad addition to the original Ace role. The thing about misrepresenting is just complete and utter bullshit, because it's punishing good scum play. I successfully created a shit side-track discussion and got punished for it.
About the setup:
Town has waaaayyyy too much KP. For those that don't get this, a vigilante shot is the best kill town has, assuming it's held by a competent player. In a normal 20 player game, that has maybe... one vigilante, town controls 2kp (lynch and shot), and mafia controls 2kp per cycle. In the end, the vigilante usually will have claimed (and gotten blocked) or died, and mafia probably ends up with more than half the kills in the game on their behalf
In this game, Town killed like 10 players or something? That's simply way too high. I only managed to figure out two mafia on day one (I almost sent in a list with syllo, L, foolishness and prplhz), but it's still enough so a bunch of gung-ho vigilantes should've chosen their shots better. L was painfully obvious as scum.
I mean, in a game that punishes bad play, it's weird town can get away with so many bad vigilante shots and still win the game. Vigilantes are stupidly powerful roles, and mafia can only counterclaim hits so long. I am a big fan of vigilantes because they put responsibility into the hands of town, but not to the point where they help town immensely.
Don't get me wrong, I liked the game and I would certainly play again. however, I would just get rid of all the damn triggers, all they do is infuriate people, and most of them are very dependent on how people play. I would argue that normal setups punish bad play much more than this one, and certainly incognito's setup in XLVIII did much more to punish bad play than this setup.
The only reason mafia came even close to winning was because town shots were really, really bad for the most part. Credit should go where it's due. Chaoser did a good job, prplhz, foolishness and meapak too.
I don't like it when people forget there are two teams in mafia, one of those teams is mafia, and this game really fucked mafia over. With triggers that stopped mafia from playing well (sidetracking town, destroying discussion, spamming, and in general being dicks), and a bunch of vigilantes mafia would've had to start counterclaiming from day 2, it pushed mafia into a corner.
I love the concept of creating a game specifically designed to counter bad play, I just don't think this was quite it. Some parts were cool (vigilantes, despite being op, are such a great role).
Mafia fucked up, and if you read this and think "man Palmar thinks mafia didn't stand a chance", then you're misunderstanding me. I'm pointing out a slight flaw in an otherwise good game, mafia just had less chance to win than usual.
funny story: syllo wanted to shoot you. Based on what you said about prpl's post on BC I deduced you had to be a third party, and so I called the shot on you off.
ofc it's too bad chaoser shot you in the face. Otherwise, I was ready to guess you were the traitor the next day.
Bolded is true. "Bad play" is very subjective and this game did not really punish it anyway. Some of the vigis (I'm lookin at you, Foolishness) were subject to their own triggers.
On that note, maybe this is controversial, but I personally don't actually think Foolishness played all that well (no offense). Imagine a setup without vigis. Would people have listened to him? Would he have been able to successfully push a lynch on someone with the type of play he was putting up? I seriously doubt it. His reads were excellent, but he had very little influence over the votes. Vigis create a lot of interruption in the flow of the scum game because the shots are almost always unexpected. There is no way to predict when a shot will occur or who will be on the receiving end, and in a game with 17 some vigis it becomes really crazy.
Something like 10 vigis missed and 3 hit their mark. Statistically that's barely above what you would get by just RNGing the shots. Not particularly stellar, IMO.
The setup is designed to punish bad play but I don't think it succeeded in that regard. Bad play was still abound in (probably unexpected) ways and there was nothing to do about it. I agree with Palmar that XLVIII's setup was actually better in this regard, because of the way the roles were aligned so that bad play was punished. The same role on both sides thing made claiming delicate and allowed for a lot of different types of play. In this game, I don't think that was the case. I felt pigeonholed just by the fact that I knew there were a lot of vigis.
As I've said before, controlling the lynch is possible, because you can influence the masses with whatever you want. That's the whole aim of the scumteam; you create distraction and implant ideas that are "bad" for townies. If you "punish" this type of play, you punish the scumteam for doing what they're supposed to be doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
