EPTEgo Mini Mafia - Page 87
| Forum Index > TL Mafia |
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
| ||
|
DarthPunk
Australia10859 Posts
On April 11 2013 21:01 marvellosity wrote: Just a terrible argument all round really. Extreme example: you put 6 chess grandmasters against 6 amateurs. Chess is a game of complete information, so as long as each team has 3 whites and 3 blacks, the match is completely balanced. But of course it isn't, because experience and ability plays a large factor, and the grandmasters will win every time. Much the same in this particular setup; I bet if you ran a simulation of this game 100 times, this town team would at least 80% of the time. Town ran over mafia despite Palmar and I pushing 2 wrong lynches day 1 and despite the fact i was hard defending a mafia. Almost things couldn't have gone worse for town this game and yet it was still totally one-sided. I'm sure this game was "fun" for town with its totally RNG element, but realistically mafia didn't really have a chance. It's a simple fact that mafia teams need people with thread impact. Essentially you are saying town won because all the good players were town and thus town played well? The argument is should we arrange teams to balance skill or not. I don't think so. Who is good is such a subjective thing in itself and IMO the whole concept detracts from the game in that not ANYONE could be scum because "lol vet blalance" | ||
|
DarthPunk
Australia10859 Posts
On April 11 2013 21:03 Oatsmaster wrote: No. People say that, but no one ever gets lynched off that only. But people look a damn sight harder at those people than they should. It's a clue and it is unnecessary. | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
This might sound like I'm bashing on the skill of the mafia but it's not how it's meant to come across. None of the people on the mafia-team have a history of large thread impact in a game and that's just a fact. This game was always going to be a town win. If you're happy for a game to be one-sided for the sake of some silly RNG concept, then fine, but you'll get games where mafia basically can't win like this one. | ||
|
Oatsmaster
United States16628 Posts
On April 11 2013 21:08 marvellosity wrote: Mafia were never going to win this game, there was just too large a difference in abilities/thread impact. This might sound like I'm bashing on the skill of the mafia but it's not how it's meant to come across. None of the people on the mafia-team have a history of large thread impact in a game and that's just a fact. This game was always going to be a town win. If you're happy for a game to be one-sided for the sake of some silly RNG concept, then fine, but you'll get games where mafia basically can't win like this one. I would say if normal deadline and no stupid lightning rod, we wouldve had a chance based off the first 48 hours. | ||
|
sciberbia
United States1359 Posts
On April 11 2013 21:01 marvellosity wrote: Just a terrible argument all round really. Extreme example: you put 6 chess grandmasters against 6 amateurs. Chess is a game of complete information, so as long as each team has 3 whites and 3 blacks, the match is completely balanced. But of course it isn't, because experience and ability plays a large factor, and the grandmasters will win every time. Much the same in this particular setup; I bet if you ran a simulation of this game 100 times, this town team would at least 80% of the time. Town ran over mafia despite Palmar and I pushing 2 wrong lynches day 1 and despite the fact i was hard defending a mafia. Almost things couldn't have gone worse for town this game and yet it was still totally one-sided. I'm sure this game was "fun" for town with its totally RNG element, but realistically mafia didn't really have a chance. It's a simple fact that mafia teams need people with thread impact. you're chess example is correct in principle but it's obviously an exaggeration. Most rng's will be somwhat fair. This one just happened to be particularly bad for scum and that is unfortunate but imo it is still better than the alternative. If you ran a simulation for a penant game between the braves and the marlins the braves would probably win 80 percent of the time AND everyone knows that going in but for any player it is nearly as exciting as if the teams were balanced. Playing for the upset is fun. | ||
|
Artanis[Xp]
Netherlands12973 Posts
If you know a host and you know he balances his setup rather than using pure RNG, in a 9 player game with three vets where two of them flip green, you know the last vet is red. Conversely, a bad player would be confirmed green when another bad player flips red. Gaming the RNG should never factor into the game, no matter how little. | ||
|
Artanis[Xp]
Netherlands12973 Posts
| ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
Handpicking teams results in a lot of bias. It's just inherent. Based on experience I roll scum way more often when I don't request an alignment. Out of the times recently I haven't requested an alignment, I've rolled nontown 4 out of 5 times. I don't think that's coincidence. and YES, people HAVE been lynched on balance reasons. Almost solely sometimes, in fact. It hasn't happened recently but there are a myriad of reasons that can explain that. | ||
|
Dandel Ion
Austria17960 Posts
And if the game was normal deadline lynches, I'd argue the scumteam would have been mighty fine. You're all overexaggerating the people-balance thing, and none of the "vets" had that big of an impact or "thread influence" or whatever. It was a solid all-around town performance, and town happened to pick up bigtime after 48 hours of day1 were over. On April 11 2013 21:15 Artanis[Xp] wrote: A fairer way to balance the game if either team is too strong would be altering the setup rather than which players are in which team, imo. That way you can still blance the game without creating speculation about who has to be scum because of balance, and some roles are ambiguous enough that you won't figure out which side used them. The setup was very light on blues. I could have probably added a framer to make the parity cop super-duper useless but meh. On April 11 2013 21:16 wherebugsgo wrote: there's no proper measure of skill in this game, so the chess analogy fails horribly. Handpicking teams results in a lot of bias. It's just inherent. Based on experience I roll scum way more often when I don't request an alignment. Out of the times recently I haven't requested an alignment, I've rolled nontown 4 out of 5 times. I don't think that's coincidence. and YES, people HAVE been lynched on balance reasons. Almost solely sometimes, in fact. It hasn't happened recently but there are a myriad of reasons that can explain that. I rolled you town in Dessert  Even though I was tempted to make you+supersoft scum just because you asked for town. PUNISHMENT! btw I also rolled dessert the same way, and it too got a team that didn't have any really strong scum players in it, and scum absolutely crushed that game. Anybody can win. | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On April 11 2013 21:11 sciberbia wrote: you're chess example is correct in principle but it's obviously an exaggeration. Most rng's will be somwhat fair. This one just happened to be particularly bad for scum and that is unfortunate but imo it is still better than the alternative. If you ran a simulation for a penant game between the braves and the marlins the braves would probably win 80 percent of the time AND everyone knows that going in but for any player it is nearly as exciting as if the teams were balanced. Playing for the upset is fun. Most RNGs will skew abilities far more than a balanced team. By definition practically, RNG will lead to much larger disparities in ability between two teams. | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On April 11 2013 21:16 Dandel Ion wrote: RNG es #1. And if the game was normal deadline lynches, I'd argue the scumteam would have been mighty fine. You're all overexaggerating the people-balance thing, and none of the "vets" had that big of an impact or "thread influence" or whatever. It was a solid all-around town performance, and town happened to pick up bigtime after 48 hours of day1 were over. ...precisely, it was a solid town performance because town was so stacked and *mafia* didn't have the thread influence, which is completely the point. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
If you lost and the game's role setup was relatively balanced, you probably could have done a lot of things better. In fact, even if the game is imbalanced role-wise you probably still did a lot of things badly. Saying you lost because of the player distribution is basically saying that you have no interest in improving yourself. I can guarantee that the reason most scum players on TL are bad is simply because they don't actually do anything. Just look at the difference in contribution/activity/interest etc. between town and scum players and you'll see exactly what I'm talking about. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On April 11 2013 21:18 marvellosity wrote: ...precisely, it was a solid town performance because town was so stacked and *mafia* didn't have the thread influence, which is completely the point. that's mafia's fault, not the fault of the host or the player distribution. | ||
|
Tunkeg
Norway1235 Posts
| ||
|
Dandel Ion
Austria17960 Posts
But that's really not my fault. Bottom line, I will keep RNG'ing my setups. Fk da haters. | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On April 11 2013 21:19 wherebugsgo wrote: that's mafia's fault, not the fault of the host or the player distribution. People have certain abilities and strengths, it's pointless saying it's the fault of the players for not having it when they were already known to not have it. Stupid. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
On April 11 2013 21:22 Dandel Ion wrote: I would say the only bad thing about it is, scum players see their team, think "shit we have no chance because no vets" and basically give up, roll over and die. But that's really not my fault. yep, they do this all the time even when the teams are good. The thing though is town does this too when they've mislynched; I think it's simply a human emotion/morale thing, not necessarily restricted to one alignment or the other. They might happen at different times but I think both factions at times wil suffer for it. | ||
|
sciberbia
United States1359 Posts
On April 11 2013 21:08 marvellosity wrote: Mafia were never going to win this game, there was just too large a difference in abilities/thread impact. This might sound like I'm bashing on the skill of the mafia but it's not how it's meant to come across. None of the people on the mafia-team have a history of large thread impact in a game and that's just a fact. This game was always going to be a town win. If you're happy for a game to be one-sided for the sake of some silly RNG concept, then fine, but you'll get games where mafia basically can't win like this one. Agreed. I'm fine with games where one team is better. I play sports and if the other team is better than mine I take it as a challenge. It doesn't make the game less fun. As long as I have some reasonable chance to win. yes this is subjective. hence why we disagree. also this game could have gone much worse for town. None of our power roles were lynched or NK'd. WoS and i barely survived. Axle was lynched out of nowhere. Oats i dunno how he was even lynched. If town had consisted of 4 sciberbia's we would have lynched prplhz and WoS before Oats. You yourself thought Oats was town. Town just made some really nice reads. maybe instant majority makes the game imba for town. idk. tough to say i honestly have no idea. seems close to balanced to me though | ||
|
Artanis[Xp]
Netherlands12973 Posts
On April 11 2013 21:22 Dandel Ion wrote: I would say the only bad thing about it is, scum players see their team, think "shit we have no chance because no vets" and basically give up, roll over and die. But that's really not my fault. So kinda like you in British Empire Mini Mafia II then? | ||
| ||
