• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 02:13
CEST 08:13
KST 15:13
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall10HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy6
Community News
Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation12$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced6Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles6[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China9Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL66
StarCraft 2
General
Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation TL Team Map Contest #4: Winners Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings
Tourneys
$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series WardiTV Mondays
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma
Brood War
General
BW General Discussion BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ [G] Progamer Settings ASL20 Preliminary Maps [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China [BSL20] Grand Finals - Sunday 20:00 CET CSL Xiamen International Invitational
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Nintendo Switch Thread Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games? Beyond All Reason
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Positive Thoughts on Setting Up a Dual-Caliber FX
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
US Politics Mega-thread Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Summer Games Done Quick 2025! Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
Culture Clash in Video Games…
TrAiDoS
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 581 users

Automatic Balance Tester - Page 4

Forum Index > TL Mafia
Post a Reply
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next All
Xatalos
Profile Joined January 2011
Finland9675 Posts
January 10 2014 21:28 GMT
#61
On January 11 2014 06:05 gonzaw wrote:
I think....we could just use good ol' probabilities and statistics, based on all possible scenarios.

For example, you can balance a game, knowing that in the worst case scenario for town, town loses on D3 after 2 misslynches and 2 NK going through. Then you have the worst case scenario for scum, where town lynches scum 3 days in a row, the medic saves shots 2 nights in a row, cop gets checks 2 nights in a row, etc.
But what about the stuff in between? You can't balance JUST using worst case scenarios, because those will NEVER happen, they are just a rough guide on what "could" happen.
I think it's more important to balance according to what WILL indeed happen.

Maybe the best way to model that, is just count all possible scenarios, assign a probability to them, or maybe some other factor (like a Balance Number perhaps?), and then determine the overall balance of the game, knowing the probability of each of these scenarios.
Most likely there would be heuristics to determine these probabilities/factors, or some other theory that can help.

For instance, yes, the worst case scenario for scum is if the Town Vig shoots scum on N1, the medic saves 2 townies on N1 and N2, and town lynches scum on D1, D2 and D3. Good, but that will surely NOT happen at all. What will most likely happen, is town misslynches on D1, town vig shoots a townie on N1, town lynches scum on D2, medic saves townie on N2, bla bla bla. THAT is the "normal" flow of the game you should be balancing. If town has it so easy, that in that scenario they win almost all the time, then the game is balanced wrong, even if there exists a "worst case scenario" for town that seems it can fuck them up pretty badly. The point is that it's more probable that the "normal" flow of the game happens than that worst case scenario.

Different roles have different balancing factors as well, that's not just a +1 or -1. A town vig can shoot a townie or a scum, he has the power to greatly favor scum or town. That has a lot of variance, so when a vig is inserted in a game, it should introduce variance on the chances each faction can win, and thus balance.
Idem when you have a cop and a framer or GF for instance. It introduces variance, since the cop may check the GF. That greatly changes the game, since the GF could be considered almost confirmed town. Or maybe town is good and catch him nevertheless. That's even more variance (how town can react to it).

I think something like that might work better: introduce the average chance each faction has to win the game, and the variance of it, and balance (somehow) according to that).

Seems to me there can be better ways to handle balance, to be as accurate as possible.


Yeah, I thought about that at the very beginning. The problem is that if you have like 20+ players and/or 6+ power roles, it becomes more and more difficult to keep track of all the possible scenarios. Hmm... On the other hand, maybe it's not impossible. There would need to be some kind of a very effective algorithm for keeping track of each possible scenario, which sounds pretty difficult, but I think it might be doable. Maybe I should try testing something like that - at least with a small all vanilla setup. It only gets harder from there though
"The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself." - Sun Tzu
kitaman27 *
Profile Blog Joined April 2009
United States9245 Posts
January 10 2014 21:48 GMT
#62
On January 11 2014 06:05 gonzaw wrote:
I think....we could just use good ol' probabilities and statistics, based on all possible scenarios.

For example, you can balance a game, knowing that in the worst case scenario for town, town loses on D3 after 2 misslynches and 2 NK going through. Then you have the worst case scenario for scum, where town lynches scum 3 days in a row, the medic saves shots 2 nights in a row, cop gets checks 2 nights in a row, etc.
But what about the stuff in between? You can't balance JUST using worst case scenarios, because those will NEVER happen, they are just a rough guide on what "could" happen.
I think it's more important to balance according to what WILL indeed happen.


I think considering worst case scenarios is helpful because it allows you to eliminate undesirable scenarios. In mini games, the worst case (or close to worst case) scenarios aren't so uncommon that you never see them play out that way since you're usually only dealing with 1-2 roles.

Suppose you come up with a setup that is 55/45 in balance and each faction must pull off three correct lynches before they have a chance of winning.

You have a have another setup that is 50/50 in balance, but once out of every ten times, a game snowballs with a night one loss for a faction.

I'd probably want to run the first setup where you can ensure you aren't going to end up with the occasional dud, even if it is slightly less balanced.

On January 11 2014 06:05 gonzaw wrote:
Different roles have different balancing factors as well, that's not just a +1 or -1. A town vig can shoot a townie or a scum, he has the power to greatly favor scum or town. That has a lot of variance, so when a vig is inserted in a game, it should introduce variance on the chances each faction can win, and thus balance.


In theory, introducing a vig or cop should never impact the town's chances of winning in a negative way. Since the vig has a choice of shooting, it should never be worse than a vanilla townie. However, the positive value of the vig or cop can vary from setup to setup like you're saying.

On January 11 2014 06:05 gonzaw wrote:
I think something like that might work better: introduce the average chance each faction has to win the game, and the variance of it, and balance (somehow) according to that).

Seems to me there can be better ways to handle balance, to be as accurate as possible.


It's difficult to calculate the average chance each faction has to win. You could try to calculate out every single scenario and take an average of all outcomes, but that's assuming lynches and night actions are randomized, which isn't the case. You could try to come up with odds of each lynch going a certain way based on past games, but I don't think the sample size is large enough for it to give us an accurate weighting.
I'm better than dirt. Well, most kinds of dirt. I mean not that fancy store bought dirt. That stuffs loaded with nutrients. I... I can't compete with that stuff.
gonzaw
Profile Joined December 2011
Uruguay4911 Posts
January 10 2014 22:37 GMT
#63
Well yeah, it's hard to do this stuff. That's what theories are for!
(like I said....if someone is a mathematician here it'd greatly help ).

In the most crude way possible, yes, you'd count EVERY single possible scenario, and for each one of those, individually calculate the probability it has, or how that scenario can happen and how it affects balance. After all of that is done you get the overall average win rate and balance. That is basically impossible, yes. There should be "shortcuts" to group together scenarios, get conclusions from them, etc.
Any possible theorem or conclusion, etc you can come up with, can be used here.

For example, you could say something like: Town has a better chance to lynch scum if 20%-25% of players are scum. If more than 25% or less than 20% of players are scum, it's more likely town will misslynch.
That would be a pretty good observation wouldn't it? If scum are more than 25% of players, they have more leverage on town, thus can control the lynch and put it on a townie. If less than 20% of players are scum, there are more townies than scum, and scum is hidden better, so town is more likely to lynch a townie trying to blindly find the scum.
With this conclusion, you can come up with related conclusions as well, like maybe that town is more likely to lynch scum on D2 after they misslynched on D1, or that if town lynches 90% of scum in a row, then they are more likely to lose than if they lynched said 90% with misslynches in between (basically, when there is 1 scum between 10 townies and the scum ends up winning. Happens at times).

I pulled all of those numbers from my ass, but you get the meaning. We can study the game, and use the conclusions to balance the game better. For example, the above observations give you a comparison between scenarios and what chances the factions have of winning the game in those scenarios. Might not be much but it may be a start, and with more work we could end up with a balancing system that works as intended.


I think a starting point is figuring out the "perfect" balance in a pure vanilla game. I.e determine the amount of scum and scum KP there should be depending on the amount of players, etc.
If we have something optimal for that, then we can introduce roles into the equation and see how it goes, and formulate new theories based on that...

...or maybe this is impossible or something and the +1/-1 thing is enough
gonzaw
Profile Joined December 2011
Uruguay4911 Posts
January 10 2014 22:43 GMT
#64
On January 11 2014 06:48 kitaman27 wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 11 2014 06:05 gonzaw wrote:
I think....we could just use good ol' probabilities and statistics, based on all possible scenarios.

For example, you can balance a game, knowing that in the worst case scenario for town, town loses on D3 after 2 misslynches and 2 NK going through. Then you have the worst case scenario for scum, where town lynches scum 3 days in a row, the medic saves shots 2 nights in a row, cop gets checks 2 nights in a row, etc.
But what about the stuff in between? You can't balance JUST using worst case scenarios, because those will NEVER happen, they are just a rough guide on what "could" happen.
I think it's more important to balance according to what WILL indeed happen.


I think considering worst case scenarios is helpful because it allows you to eliminate undesirable scenarios. In mini games, the worst case (or close to worst case) scenarios aren't so uncommon that you never see them play out that way since you're usually only dealing with 1-2 roles.

Suppose you come up with a setup that is 55/45 in balance and each faction must pull off three correct lynches before they have a chance of winning.

You have a have another setup that is 50/50 in balance, but once out of every ten times, a game snowballs with a night one loss for a faction.

I'd probably want to run the first setup where you can ensure you aren't going to end up with the occasional dud, even if it is slightly less balanced.


That's a case of the variance I mentioned.
In the 1st case you mentioned, there is +-0% variance. In the 2nd, let's say there is +-20% variance. In these cases, you don't only care about the average chance of win from each faction, but also the variance, and both affect the balance of the game.

Well, technically it's the average rate of winning (not chance) but whatever.

Show nested quote +
On January 11 2014 06:05 gonzaw wrote:
I think something like that might work better: introduce the average chance each faction has to win the game, and the variance of it, and balance (somehow) according to that).

Seems to me there can be better ways to handle balance, to be as accurate as possible.


It's difficult to calculate the average chance each faction has to win. You could try to calculate out every single scenario and take an average of all outcomes, but that's assuming lynches and night actions are randomized, which isn't the case. You could try to come up with odds of each lynch going a certain way based on past games, but I don't think the sample size is large enough for it to give us an accurate weighting.


Yes, the lynches and night actions aren't randomized, but you can analyse how the game works to get conclusions from it that you base your analysis in. For example, that previous bolded "conclusion" is based entirely on how the game works, nothing else. Yet with that conclusion you can do probabilistic and mathematical work to find out the chances each faction has to win, etc.
marvellosity
Profile Joined January 2011
United Kingdom36161 Posts
January 10 2014 22:49 GMT
#65
Worst case scenarios are pretty fundamental for balancing imo. Especially for the townside, where day 1 mislynches and vigis misfiring are common things.
[15:15] <Palmar> and yes marv, you're a total hottie
gonzaw
Profile Joined December 2011
Uruguay4911 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-01-11 03:15:05
January 11 2014 03:11 GMT
#66
But it's only one part of the equation. Making sure town doesn't lose in D2 if they have bad luck/aim, is not enough to make sure the game is balanced. What if town, on average, loses 80% of the time in D4 instead? You can't account for that just by looking at the worst case scenario where they lose on D2 and making sure it doesn't happen.

There is also the fact about how you actually analyze these worst case scenarios.
Yes, if it's a "normal" game, with just a vig, it's easy to figure out how it can happen. I.e town misslynches 1 time and a vig shoots a townie and town is in MYLO or something.
But what if you have Cops and Framers and GFs? Is there a "worst case" scenario with those? Surely there is (cop gets red check on a framed townie every single night). Is it as likely, or does it have as much of an impact in the game? Perhaps, or perhaps not.
What if there is 1 scum bus driver and 1 town bus driver, a jailer, 2 watchers, 2 trackers, and 3 nosy neighbors? How do you analyze that? What is the worst case scenario? Is it likely it will happen? Does it have an impact in the game (in contrast to other non-worse scenarios)? Is it worth analyzing? Is it fundamental for balancing in that game?
Xatalos
Profile Joined January 2011
Finland9675 Posts
January 13 2014 08:04 GMT
#67
Ouch... Scum twice in a row and catched too easily both times :D I'll need a strategic break or something for a while.

I'd like to experiment with at least the best/worst scenarios when I have time, maybe this weekend. Potentially I could also try the "average scenario" stuff although that's a lot more complicated.
"The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself." - Sun Tzu
gonzaw
Profile Joined December 2011
Uruguay4911 Posts
January 13 2014 16:42 GMT
#68
Yeah.

Like I said, maybe it's better to go step by step, in terms of roles and setups. First, just have VTs and Goons, and determine the "Balance Factor" depending on the number of players and number of scum. Then introduce, say, a medic, and take into account the worst/best case scenarios with that one, how it works in a mafia game and how you'd balance it in a general sense. Then maybe introduce the scum RBer, and do the exact same, but also relate it to the medic role (when both are in the same game).
Then introduce the cop, then the GF, then the vig, then framer, then maybe SK, etc etc.

I think that is the best way to go. If not, you get overwhelmed by roles and setups, and the theory behind the balancing may suffer and not make it accurate.
Xatalos
Profile Joined January 2011
Finland9675 Posts
January 23 2014 19:58 GMT
#69
Finally I found some free time to continue with the balance tester!

There are a lot of small, mostly invisible changes in the program - and then there's one big addition. You can now view the fastest possible victory for town/Mafia(1-3 KP) in your chosen setup. Currently the fastest victory calculations only take into account 1) one lynch per day 2) 1-3 Mafia KP per night 3) 1 KP per Vigilante (per game).

Neutral roles and Veterans currently have no effect on the results. Neutral roles turned out to be quite annoying in these calculations, so I just decided to ignore them completely. I've come to realize that especially roles like SK can completely ruin the game... So if you want to ensure a fair game with normal length, it's probably better not to include any SKs. Veterans would very rarely have any effect on the results (keep in mind that these are just the extreme scenarios), so I decided to ignore them as well. I doubt anyone would run more than 2 Veterans at the same time anyway...

So far the results of the fastest victory scenarios seem accurate, but there's probably something wrong somewhere - feedback is appreciated!

Here's the download link:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/zb7oxzsz177h4f7/Mafia_Balance_Tester.jar

I've also experimented a bit with the idea of comparing past game results with how balanced those setups should be - according to the balance tester. Before coming to any conclusions, here are some results (these games are all the Mini games - with "normal" roles - from the TL Mafia Central Library):

Mini Mafia 1
Town Victory Odds: 45.28%
Mafia Victory Odds: 54.72%
-> Solid Mafia Victory

Mini Mafia 2
Town Victory Odds: 50.85%
Mafia Victory Odds: 49.15%
-> Close Town Victory

Mini Mafia 3
Town Victory Odds: 43.14%
Mafia Victory Odds: 56.86%
-> Overwhelming Mafia Victory

Micro Mafia (The First)
Town Victory Odds: 53.93%
Mafia Victory Odds: 46.07%
-> Close Town Victory

Micro Mafia (The Second)
Town Victory Odds: 54.05%
Mafia Victory Odds: 45.95%
-> Overwhelming Mafia Victory

The Life Aquatic Mini Mafia
Town Victory Odds: 54.05%
Mafia Victory Odds: 45.95%
-> Close Mafia Victory

Micro Mafia IV: Redemption
Town Victory Odds: 54.05%
Mafia Victory Odds: 45.95%
-> Solid Mafia Victory

Merc Micro Mafia
Town Victory Odds: 37.04%
Mafia Victory Odds: 62.96%
-> Overwhelming Mafia Victory

Mini Mafia V: Clues and Puzzles
Town Victory Odds: 48.48%
Mafia Victory Odds: 51.52%
-> Solid Mafia Victory

Although this is a pretty small sample size, I think there are some interesting details about the results.

1) Town NEVER won if the odds were against them. Mafia occasionally won despite being at a small disadvantage (I assume anti-town/lurker townies can make up for the difference).

2) The most unbalanced setup was Merc Micro Mafia by far (5x VT vs 2x Mafia). That means a convincing 62.96% chance of Mafia victory. Add in the probable anti-town/lurker townies and this setup is heavily Mafia-favored. Unsurprisingly, the game resulted in a dominating Mafia victory.

3) The most balanced setup was Mini Mafia 2 (6x VT, Cop, Doctor, 1-Shot Vigilante, 2x Mafia Goon, Godfather) which resulted in a close town victory. I think the result of the game is a good indicator that it was, indeed, fairly balanced.

4) There might be some need for balance tuning yet. Apparently Mafia can take convincing victories even if the odds are supposed to be against them, so it could be necessary to take this into account and increase the balance values of Mafia roles. Alternatively town roles could have their values reduced slightly to take into account the probable anti-town players amongst them. Currently it seems like town has a hard time winning even if the setup is town-favored - and it's impossible to win for town if the setup is Mafia-favored. But more experimentation with past games would be needed to draw better conclusions.
"The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself." - Sun Tzu
HiroPro
Profile Joined March 2012
United States2624 Posts
Last Edited: 2014-01-23 21:05:22
January 23 2014 20:53 GMT
#70
Merc Micro isn't a normal setup. The players start out with items (so they aren't actually VTs) and money to buy other items.
Xatalos
Profile Joined January 2011
Finland9675 Posts
January 23 2014 21:13 GMT
#71
On January 24 2014 05:53 HiroPro wrote:
Merc Micro isn't a normal setup. The players start out with items (so they aren't actually VTs) and money to buy other items.


Oh OK. Looks like I mistakenly included it then : /
"The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself." - Sun Tzu
Xatalos
Profile Joined January 2011
Finland9675 Posts
January 26 2014 15:18 GMT
#72
On second thoughts, it's probably better not to balance for suboptimal play. Although Mafia might be slightly favored in an environment where everyone is playing poorly, it'd be problematic for actually high level games if the setup wasn't balanced for that situation. And it's hard to tell in advance (also since the roles are only decided just before the game begins).

Opinions?
"The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself." - Sun Tzu
raynpelikoneet
Profile Joined April 2007
Finland43268 Posts
January 26 2014 15:43 GMT
#73
I think the optimal/suboptimal play is the most decideing factor in a game. Agreed, probably impossible to balance since you can't know or predict where the suboptimal play happens (is it going to be mafia, town??) and it's impossible to calculate.

If you look at Really Small mini mafia for example: 1 doctor, 4 VT vs 2 goon (+ instant majority lynch which usually favors mafia). Your program gives the following chances:
Town 45.16 %
Mafia 54.84 %
-> Overwhelming town victory

After the game i talked with Mocsta about the game. He asked me "how is mafia supposed to win that game?". I don't know, if we assume all the players played as optimally they did in that game, regardless who was mafia i think mafia wouldn't have stood a chance. When townies look town there are no mislynces. So what do you do? You most likely lose because you need to make up things as there is no bad play to punish and good players will see through your bullshit.

So all in all i think the play of players is the biggest factor in games, regardless of the roles, but it is impossible to balance as you can't predict the "level of play" beforehand.
table for two on a tv tray
Xatalos
Profile Joined January 2011
Finland9675 Posts
January 26 2014 19:56 GMT
#74
On January 27 2014 00:43 raynpelikoneet wrote:
I think the optimal/suboptimal play is the most decideing factor in a game. Agreed, probably impossible to balance since you can't know or predict where the suboptimal play happens (is it going to be mafia, town??) and it's impossible to calculate.

If you look at Really Small mini mafia for example: 1 doctor, 4 VT vs 2 goon (+ instant majority lynch which usually favors mafia). Your program gives the following chances:
Town 45.16 %
Mafia 54.84 %
-> Overwhelming town victory

After the game i talked with Mocsta about the game. He asked me "how is mafia supposed to win that game?". I don't know, if we assume all the players played as optimally they did in that game, regardless who was mafia i think mafia wouldn't have stood a chance. When townies look town there are no mislynces. So what do you do? You most likely lose because you need to make up things as there is no bad play to punish and good players will see through your bullshit.

So all in all i think the play of players is the biggest factor in games, regardless of the roles, but it is impossible to balance as you can't predict the "level of play" beforehand.


That's an interesting example.

I agree that it gets harder for Mafia if everyone is playing "perfectly". On the other hand, if everyone *is* playing perfectly, then Mafia should be favored, since it would be just random chance to hit Mafia (which is more unlikely). But it's a lot harder for Mafia than for town to really appear town in an environment where every townie appears townish.

Setup balance does still play a role and should be focused on - since it's the only truly predictable part of game balance. Another way might be to somehow balance the players (an equal share of "good" players for both teams?), but then that would create a new area of setup speculation Maybe some hosts already do balancing like this and I'm just not familiar with it. It doesn't actually seem like that bad of an idea considering the fairness/balance of games.
"The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself." - Sun Tzu
Xatalos
Profile Joined January 2011
Finland9675 Posts
February 09 2014 09:13 GMT
#75
/bump

Any new ideas / feedback about the latest version?
"The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself." - Sun Tzu
Promethelax
Profile Joined February 2012
Canada7089 Posts
February 14 2014 02:32 GMT
#76
On January 27 2014 04:56 Xatalos wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 27 2014 00:43 raynpelikoneet wrote:
I think the optimal/suboptimal play is the most decideing factor in a game. Agreed, probably impossible to balance since you can't know or predict where the suboptimal play happens (is it going to be mafia, town??) and it's impossible to calculate.

If you look at Really Small mini mafia for example: 1 doctor, 4 VT vs 2 goon (+ instant majority lynch which usually favors mafia). Your program gives the following chances:
Town 45.16 %
Mafia 54.84 %
-> Overwhelming town victory

After the game i talked with Mocsta about the game. He asked me "how is mafia supposed to win that game?". I don't know, if we assume all the players played as optimally they did in that game, regardless who was mafia i think mafia wouldn't have stood a chance. When townies look town there are no mislynces. So what do you do? You most likely lose because you need to make up things as there is no bad play to punish and good players will see through your bullshit.

So all in all i think the play of players is the biggest factor in games, regardless of the roles, but it is impossible to balance as you can't predict the "level of play" beforehand.


That's an interesting example.

I agree that it gets harder for Mafia if everyone is playing "perfectly". On the other hand, if everyone *is* playing perfectly, then Mafia should be favored, since it would be just random chance to hit Mafia (which is more unlikely). But it's a lot harder for Mafia than for town to really appear town in an environment where every townie appears townish.

Setup balance does still play a role and should be focused on - since it's the only truly predictable part of game balance. Another way might be to somehow balance the players (an equal share of "good" players for both teams?), but then that would create a new area of setup speculation Maybe some hosts already do balancing like this and I'm just not familiar with it. It doesn't actually seem like that bad of an idea considering the fairness/balance of games.


Some hosts do balance that way, more often with vets rather than good players but the idea remains the same, I don't condone it but some do.
TL Mafia. Love it. Play it. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/index.php?show_part=31 I find Kennigit really attractive. If anyone has a picture of him please feel free to PM it to me.
Xatalos
Profile Joined January 2011
Finland9675 Posts
February 16 2014 11:03 GMT
#77
On February 14 2014 11:32 Promethelax wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 27 2014 04:56 Xatalos wrote:
On January 27 2014 00:43 raynpelikoneet wrote:
I think the optimal/suboptimal play is the most decideing factor in a game. Agreed, probably impossible to balance since you can't know or predict where the suboptimal play happens (is it going to be mafia, town??) and it's impossible to calculate.

If you look at Really Small mini mafia for example: 1 doctor, 4 VT vs 2 goon (+ instant majority lynch which usually favors mafia). Your program gives the following chances:
Town 45.16 %
Mafia 54.84 %
-> Overwhelming town victory

After the game i talked with Mocsta about the game. He asked me "how is mafia supposed to win that game?". I don't know, if we assume all the players played as optimally they did in that game, regardless who was mafia i think mafia wouldn't have stood a chance. When townies look town there are no mislynces. So what do you do? You most likely lose because you need to make up things as there is no bad play to punish and good players will see through your bullshit.

So all in all i think the play of players is the biggest factor in games, regardless of the roles, but it is impossible to balance as you can't predict the "level of play" beforehand.


That's an interesting example.

I agree that it gets harder for Mafia if everyone is playing "perfectly". On the other hand, if everyone *is* playing perfectly, then Mafia should be favored, since it would be just random chance to hit Mafia (which is more unlikely). But it's a lot harder for Mafia than for town to really appear town in an environment where every townie appears townish.

Setup balance does still play a role and should be focused on - since it's the only truly predictable part of game balance. Another way might be to somehow balance the players (an equal share of "good" players for both teams?), but then that would create a new area of setup speculation Maybe some hosts already do balancing like this and I'm just not familiar with it. It doesn't actually seem like that bad of an idea considering the fairness/balance of games.


Some hosts do balance that way, more often with vets rather than good players but the idea remains the same, I don't condone it but some do.


Hm. Isn't it better if not all the veteran players are on the same team? Pure randomness could produce games where one of the teams never stood a chance, I'd think?
"The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself." - Sun Tzu
Promethelax
Profile Joined February 2012
Canada7089 Posts
February 17 2014 02:58 GMT
#78
On February 16 2014 20:03 Xatalos wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 14 2014 11:32 Promethelax wrote:
On January 27 2014 04:56 Xatalos wrote:
On January 27 2014 00:43 raynpelikoneet wrote:
I think the optimal/suboptimal play is the most decideing factor in a game. Agreed, probably impossible to balance since you can't know or predict where the suboptimal play happens (is it going to be mafia, town??) and it's impossible to calculate.

If you look at Really Small mini mafia for example: 1 doctor, 4 VT vs 2 goon (+ instant majority lynch which usually favors mafia). Your program gives the following chances:
Town 45.16 %
Mafia 54.84 %
-> Overwhelming town victory

After the game i talked with Mocsta about the game. He asked me "how is mafia supposed to win that game?". I don't know, if we assume all the players played as optimally they did in that game, regardless who was mafia i think mafia wouldn't have stood a chance. When townies look town there are no mislynces. So what do you do? You most likely lose because you need to make up things as there is no bad play to punish and good players will see through your bullshit.

So all in all i think the play of players is the biggest factor in games, regardless of the roles, but it is impossible to balance as you can't predict the "level of play" beforehand.


That's an interesting example.

I agree that it gets harder for Mafia if everyone is playing "perfectly". On the other hand, if everyone *is* playing perfectly, then Mafia should be favored, since it would be just random chance to hit Mafia (which is more unlikely). But it's a lot harder for Mafia than for town to really appear town in an environment where every townie appears townish.

Setup balance does still play a role and should be focused on - since it's the only truly predictable part of game balance. Another way might be to somehow balance the players (an equal share of "good" players for both teams?), but then that would create a new area of setup speculation Maybe some hosts already do balancing like this and I'm just not familiar with it. It doesn't actually seem like that bad of an idea considering the fairness/balance of games.


Some hosts do balance that way, more often with vets rather than good players but the idea remains the same, I don't condone it but some do.


Hm. Isn't it better if not all the veteran players are on the same team? Pure randomness could produce games where one of the teams never stood a chance, I'd think?


You would think that but individual play is what wins and loses games, sometimes vets rotfl stomp newbies (fruity) and sometimes newbies destroy vets (les mafia). I prefer these random draws because it gives town one less thing to game, there is already setup speculation and I personally find vet balance speculation totally worthless because it is not mafia.
TL Mafia. Love it. Play it. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/index.php?show_part=31 I find Kennigit really attractive. If anyone has a picture of him please feel free to PM it to me.
Blazinghand *
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States25551 Posts
February 17 2014 18:04 GMT
#79
On February 17 2014 11:58 Promethelax wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 16 2014 20:03 Xatalos wrote:
On February 14 2014 11:32 Promethelax wrote:
On January 27 2014 04:56 Xatalos wrote:
On January 27 2014 00:43 raynpelikoneet wrote:
I think the optimal/suboptimal play is the most decideing factor in a game. Agreed, probably impossible to balance since you can't know or predict where the suboptimal play happens (is it going to be mafia, town??) and it's impossible to calculate.

If you look at Really Small mini mafia for example: 1 doctor, 4 VT vs 2 goon (+ instant majority lynch which usually favors mafia). Your program gives the following chances:
Town 45.16 %
Mafia 54.84 %
-> Overwhelming town victory

After the game i talked with Mocsta about the game. He asked me "how is mafia supposed to win that game?". I don't know, if we assume all the players played as optimally they did in that game, regardless who was mafia i think mafia wouldn't have stood a chance. When townies look town there are no mislynces. So what do you do? You most likely lose because you need to make up things as there is no bad play to punish and good players will see through your bullshit.

So all in all i think the play of players is the biggest factor in games, regardless of the roles, but it is impossible to balance as you can't predict the "level of play" beforehand.


That's an interesting example.

I agree that it gets harder for Mafia if everyone is playing "perfectly". On the other hand, if everyone *is* playing perfectly, then Mafia should be favored, since it would be just random chance to hit Mafia (which is more unlikely). But it's a lot harder for Mafia than for town to really appear town in an environment where every townie appears townish.

Setup balance does still play a role and should be focused on - since it's the only truly predictable part of game balance. Another way might be to somehow balance the players (an equal share of "good" players for both teams?), but then that would create a new area of setup speculation Maybe some hosts already do balancing like this and I'm just not familiar with it. It doesn't actually seem like that bad of an idea considering the fairness/balance of games.


Some hosts do balance that way, more often with vets rather than good players but the idea remains the same, I don't condone it but some do.


Hm. Isn't it better if not all the veteran players are on the same team? Pure randomness could produce games where one of the teams never stood a chance, I'd think?


You would think that but individual play is what wins and loses games, sometimes vets rotfl stomp newbies (fruity) and sometimes newbies destroy vets (les mafia). I prefer these random draws because it gives town one less thing to game, there is already setup speculation and I personally find vet balance speculation totally worthless because it is not mafia.


Also because RNG is king and we must bow down to it
When you stare into the iCCup, the iCCup stares back.
TL+ Member
Xatalos
Profile Joined January 2011
Finland9675 Posts
February 17 2014 18:59 GMT
#80
On February 17 2014 11:58 Promethelax wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 16 2014 20:03 Xatalos wrote:
On February 14 2014 11:32 Promethelax wrote:
On January 27 2014 04:56 Xatalos wrote:
On January 27 2014 00:43 raynpelikoneet wrote:
I think the optimal/suboptimal play is the most decideing factor in a game. Agreed, probably impossible to balance since you can't know or predict where the suboptimal play happens (is it going to be mafia, town??) and it's impossible to calculate.

If you look at Really Small mini mafia for example: 1 doctor, 4 VT vs 2 goon (+ instant majority lynch which usually favors mafia). Your program gives the following chances:
Town 45.16 %
Mafia 54.84 %
-> Overwhelming town victory

After the game i talked with Mocsta about the game. He asked me "how is mafia supposed to win that game?". I don't know, if we assume all the players played as optimally they did in that game, regardless who was mafia i think mafia wouldn't have stood a chance. When townies look town there are no mislynces. So what do you do? You most likely lose because you need to make up things as there is no bad play to punish and good players will see through your bullshit.

So all in all i think the play of players is the biggest factor in games, regardless of the roles, but it is impossible to balance as you can't predict the "level of play" beforehand.


That's an interesting example.

I agree that it gets harder for Mafia if everyone is playing "perfectly". On the other hand, if everyone *is* playing perfectly, then Mafia should be favored, since it would be just random chance to hit Mafia (which is more unlikely). But it's a lot harder for Mafia than for town to really appear town in an environment where every townie appears townish.

Setup balance does still play a role and should be focused on - since it's the only truly predictable part of game balance. Another way might be to somehow balance the players (an equal share of "good" players for both teams?), but then that would create a new area of setup speculation Maybe some hosts already do balancing like this and I'm just not familiar with it. It doesn't actually seem like that bad of an idea considering the fairness/balance of games.


Some hosts do balance that way, more often with vets rather than good players but the idea remains the same, I don't condone it but some do.


Hm. Isn't it better if not all the veteran players are on the same team? Pure randomness could produce games where one of the teams never stood a chance, I'd think?


You would think that but individual play is what wins and loses games, sometimes vets rotfl stomp newbies (fruity) and sometimes newbies destroy vets (les mafia). I prefer these random draws because it gives town one less thing to game, there is already setup speculation and I personally find vet balance speculation totally worthless because it is not mafia.


I can see your point. It's pretty arbitrary to start choosing the roles based on apparent "skill"... Since performance is based on many unpredictable factors (such as IRL issues, available time, player relationships etc.) and it's also weird for the Mafia team to suffer from host preferences. It's just slightly bugging me that some games can have pure veteran/skilled Mafia teams vs pure newbie towns

In the end, I guess the point is that the better team wins. As long as the role distribution is fair, the game should probably be somewhat fair otherwise as well. Some games are landslide victories, but I don't know what could be done about that. At least it's good that there are Newbie games, invite-only games and other special game types to create more balanced games overall.
"The opportunity to secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself." - Sun Tzu
Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 3h 47m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
Nina 196
StarCraft: Brood War
Noble 139
PianO 114
Leta 86
Bale 23
JulyZerg 12
Dota 2
ODPixel170
NeuroSwarm95
League of Legends
JimRising 828
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor113
Other Games
summit1g8706
Stewie2K1051
shahzam766
monkeys_forever540
SortOf49
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick38137
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 14 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH366
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• intothetv
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• Migwel
• sooper7s
StarCraft: Brood War
• tankgirl 1
• BSLYoutube
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
League of Legends
• Lourlo1093
• Stunt513
Upcoming Events
RSL Revival
3h 47m
ByuN vs SHIN
Clem vs Reynor
OSC
6h 47m
Replay Cast
17h 47m
RSL Revival
1d 3h
Classic vs Cure
FEL
1d 9h
OSC
1d 13h
RSL Revival
2 days
FEL
2 days
FEL
2 days
CSO Cup
2 days
[ Show More ]
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
2 days
Bonyth vs QiaoGege
Dewalt vs Fengzi
Hawk vs Zhanhun
Sziky vs Mihu
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Sziky
Fengzi vs Hawk
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
RSL Revival
3 days
FEL
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs Dewalt
QiaoGege vs Dewalt
Hawk vs Bonyth
Sziky vs Fengzi
Mihu vs Zhanhun
QiaoGege vs Zhanhun
Fengzi vs Mihu
Replay Cast
5 days
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-07-07
HSC XXVII
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025

Upcoming

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSL Xiamen Invitational
CSL Xiamen Invitational: ShowMatche
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.