|
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 
|
kitaman27
United States9245 Posts
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.
|
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
|
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.
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
Worst case scenarios are pretty fundamental for balancing imo. Especially for the townside, where day 1 mislynches and vigis misfiring are common things.
|
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?
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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 : /
|
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?
|
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.
|
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.
|
/bump
Any new ideas / feedback about the latest version?
|
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.
|
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?
|
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.
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
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
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
