EPTNewbie Mini Mafia XXVIII - Page 2
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
| ||
|
prplhz
Denmark8045 Posts
i think i'll modkill you last ... if you were playing | ||
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
| ||
|
Alsn
Sweden995 Posts
On September 22 2012 07:26 thrawn2112 wrote: Obviously because that doesn't include a math formula? :Dwhat is wrong with just saying majority But to be completely honest I don't care for the required number of votes either way. Initially I just thought that the same thing had occured as in my last mafia(but in those rules there was an example that directly contradicted the rule, which made the rules hard to understand). I didn't realize that your "in the case of a tie" addendum took care of that until I had posted my initial unedited message. Then upon closer inspection I realized that the 3 vs 3 scenario would be pretty awkward, since it would allow town to win in such a scenario(which felt weird to me). I would be completely fine with the rule as initially stated, but with an addendum that town loses when they no longer outnumber scum during the day. Since having an entire 48 hour cycle just to wait for the guy that mafia voted on to get lynched would be pretty silly. One could argue that the rules suggest that scum has already won, but as stated the rules only say that scum wins when they outnumber town or nothing can prevent that from happening. With a rule like that, it becomes a race to the F5 button every new day, since there is a way to prevent mafia from outnumbering town, by all town through some miracle instantly voting a mafia member. This of course requires that all town already know during the night who the remaining mafia players are, but in such a case, the only deciding factor left in the game is which faction can the most quickly spend all their votes after the day post. Edit: Also, with the formula you have now, the "in the case of a tie" addendum is no longer needed, since there can never be a tie that could result in a lynch due to the majority requirement. I'd say "in the case of a tie" is more something akin to plurality lynch, where you don't need a majority and where ties would be more likely(due to the possibility of votes spread across more than 2 candidates). But then you'd get back to requiring a rule to prevent the silly F5 scenario I posited above. | ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
| ||
|
Alsn
Sweden995 Posts
On September 22 2012 07:38 thrawn2112 wrote: Like I said, I'm bored. :Dhmm i was trying to troll prplhz and not you with that question but damn lol | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
| ||
|
prplhz
Denmark8045 Posts
yes the outnumber rule should be adjusted in that case i just like ceil #/2 because it's easier to get a lynch and lynches are good for just about everybody, town scum spectator thanks marv and kita you guys are too nice | ||
|
Alsn
Sweden995 Posts
 | ||
|
Alsn
Sweden995 Posts
| ||
|
Alsn
Sweden995 Posts
On September 22 2012 07:42 marvellosity wrote: That's what I was about to do! Then I found a new mafia game to distract me! I blame prpl! go make yourself useful in my obsQT xD  | ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
On September 22 2012 07:44 Alsn wrote: Also, it seems we have stumbled onto a topic which seems far deeper than I initially suspected. The majority vs plurality issue, what effects they have on balance between the factions not to mention what win requirements should really be. I'm sure someone more bored than me has already thought about this a great deal, but I find it interesting nevertheless. maybe I will bring up the issue in my first post of a game at some point, I sure it will make the start of D1 interesting | ||
|
thrawn2112
United States6918 Posts
On September 22 2012 07:45 Alsn wrote: Also, thumbs up to you prplhz for considering this all in stride, usually people just tell me to shut up. :D lol marv? | ||
|
prplhz
Denmark8045 Posts
On September 22 2012 07:44 Alsn wrote: Also, it seems we have stumbled onto a topic which seems far deeper than I initially suspected. The majority vs plurality issue, what effects they have on balance between the factions not to mention what win requirements should really be. I'm sure someone more bored than me has already thought about this a great deal, but I find it interesting nevertheless. well i don't exactly remember because it's been a while since first time i hosted but newbie games tend to have people forget how to vote or that they're even playing and newbies don't always fully realize that's it's often very important to lynch and newbie games tend to be a little scum favored because it's often easier to play scum than town so that's probably along the lines of what i thought and then i just didn't think of the fact that 3v3 would actually be a race to vote first if i didn't adjust the outnumber rule. like you said the tie rule was there because ceil #/2 allows for ties. | ||
|
Dandel Ion
Austria17960 Posts
MADNESS | ||
|
iamperfection
United States9648 Posts
/obs | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
I resent that implication  | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25563 Posts
This game follows a simple extended majority lynch. So if there are 8 players you need 5 to lynch, if there are 7 players you need 4 to lynch. Pretty unambiguous imo. I don't run plurality, but if I did I'd use this wording: This game follows a simple plurality lynch lynch. The player with most votes at the deadline is lynched. If 2 players have the same number of votes, they're both lynched. Which would work pretty well. If you're not in favor of double lynching you could do this: 5. This game uses plurality voting, so whoever has the most votes at the end of the day is lynched. There is no minimum number of votes required to lynch someone. 6. In the event of a tie the person with the current amount of votes first wins (or loses). Tiebreaking examples: A game with players A, B, C, D, and E. A is voting for E (1 vote for E), and B and C are voting for D (2 votes for D). D then votes for E (now 2 votes for E) and the day ends. D is lynched, because D was at 2 votes before E was. C, D, and E are voting for A (3 votes for A), with A and B voting for C (2 votes for C). D changes his vote from A to B (now 2 votes for A, 1 vote for B), and the day ends. C is lynched, because C was at 2 votes before A was. | ||
|
Sonic Death Monkey
Sweden991 Posts
| ||
|
Alsn
Sweden995 Posts
On September 22 2012 19:05 Blazinghand wrote: But in your second example, while C was the first one to have the exact end vote, A could have had 2 votes before him. Assuming C and E voted for A before A and B voted for C. If taking your example to the extreme case, a possible awkward scenario such as the following could happen:The rule I use in my OPs is this: Pretty unambiguous imo. I don't run plurality, but if I did I'd use this wording: Which would work pretty well. If you're not in favor of double lynching you could do this: A and B votes for C(2 votes), then C and D vote for A(2 votes), at this point C is set to be lynched. But then E could vote for C, putting him at three votes and then retract his vote, suddenly making A the one to be lynched even though nothing has really change from before E. In fact, the only thing that happened was that briefly, one more person was willing to vote for C, but instead A gets lynched? | ||
| ||
