|
On June 16 2015 10:58 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2015 10:49 GlowingBear wrote:On June 16 2015 06:31 Blazinghand wrote:OK so overall here's where I'm at. 1. I think there were some serious behavior issues this game, a non-trivial amount of which stemmed from WBG, but some of which was directed at him as well. No matter what, we can agree WBG was the center of a minor shitstorm starting from partway through D1 and basically continuing in one form or another until the Final Warning that I gave the thread. WBG and I have a lot in common as players, since he and I are literally the same person, so I understand how people can react to his play. He can be caustic and aggressive, and this caused people to get mad at him, which caused him to be mad at other people, and things spiralled out of control. I think I did a good job of calming people down, but in general I'd like to think the town itself did a good job of eventually calming down. Let's do our best to be friendly in the future. 2. There was a lot of anger and confusion going on with the scumteam. It seems some scum were communicating with each other separately via skype, and boxing one guy out, then one of them died, then they started like, trying to PM me and argue over who had the right to choose what KP was submitted. All in all, I am really disappointed in everyone involved in the scumteam. You guys were immature and childish. I used to be much more aggressive with requiring scum to only communicate via QT, but I eventually became more chill about it because I thought people could be mature. You guys getting into some huge dick-measure contest and submitting bad night actions and not communicating was NOT what this game needed, and honestly, I expected better of you. We're all adults here, guys. If I see this kind of thing happening again, I'll bring back the "you can literally only talk in the scum QT and I will modkill if you do otherwise" rule, and nobody liked that. 3. Overall, I think we all know that the game revolved around the 2 Witch Hunter lynches. The strategy that came into play, involving voting and stuff like that-- I don't think this is actually a problem. Typically a Witch Hunter or someone SHOULD be alive for most of the game, this is only a strategy town can use when they're pretty ahead, and are very sure they're about to lynch the last Witch Hunter. This problem might be solved by getting rid of the Witch Hunters and making the 2 Silver Bullets a factional power (that still needs to be delivered individually), but honestly it has only come up once, and if town lynches 2 Witch Hunters in the first two days it's basically game over anyways. 4. Yamato Tracked Bill Murray, who delivered 2 Night Actions during N1, and that only ever happens if Bill Murray is scum. This kind of thing should be fairly rare, but I will be amending the Rodent Familiar role to only tell who the FIRST person someone visits is. So in this case, since Silver Bullet resolves before anything else, he'd have seen the failed attack on WBG. Overall, many people played well this game, but I feel let down by the way you guys treated each other. I know each of you individually is capable of playing together well, especially the scumteam, and I look forward to great games from everyone here in the future. 2. I will react like that everytime I'm out of a TEAM communication, especially when they are the FIRST TWO LYNCHES OF THE GAME. I will NEVER tolerate letting people that aren't playing well to decide all actions and not even ask my opinion. 3. I just think that something that permits a game to be solved only by mechanics, when Mafia is a game of argumentation, is broken. Just try to get on my perspective once. I put a considerable amount of "good" play, but my team mates doesn't, they die but I live and people are townreading me YAY! Oh wait, they can figure out I'm Mafia in two days, no matter what I do. It completely disregards my play, and it felt very unfair to me. Hmm, that's a fair point. Maybe factionalizing the Silver Bullets is the way to go, then.
This could work
|
On June 16 2015 11:36 wherebugsgo wrote:
I think there's too much KP involved in this setup.
It would be better as a 16 player setup with 4 scum.
I think even better would be to give mafia two players that can vote for blues, and remove all KP roles. That way scum can influence the votes themselves and be elected even with scum votes just like in games where you can have a scum mayor.
But this completely changes the theme
I think making silver bullets factional is enough
I don't think that tracker should track only one action. It's part of the scum team strategy to foresee that a tracker could do that
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On June 16 2015 12:43 GlowingBear wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2015 10:58 Blazinghand wrote:On June 16 2015 10:49 GlowingBear wrote:On June 16 2015 06:31 Blazinghand wrote:OK so overall here's where I'm at. 1. I think there were some serious behavior issues this game, a non-trivial amount of which stemmed from WBG, but some of which was directed at him as well. No matter what, we can agree WBG was the center of a minor shitstorm starting from partway through D1 and basically continuing in one form or another until the Final Warning that I gave the thread. WBG and I have a lot in common as players, since he and I are literally the same person, so I understand how people can react to his play. He can be caustic and aggressive, and this caused people to get mad at him, which caused him to be mad at other people, and things spiralled out of control. I think I did a good job of calming people down, but in general I'd like to think the town itself did a good job of eventually calming down. Let's do our best to be friendly in the future. 2. There was a lot of anger and confusion going on with the scumteam. It seems some scum were communicating with each other separately via skype, and boxing one guy out, then one of them died, then they started like, trying to PM me and argue over who had the right to choose what KP was submitted. All in all, I am really disappointed in everyone involved in the scumteam. You guys were immature and childish. I used to be much more aggressive with requiring scum to only communicate via QT, but I eventually became more chill about it because I thought people could be mature. You guys getting into some huge dick-measure contest and submitting bad night actions and not communicating was NOT what this game needed, and honestly, I expected better of you. We're all adults here, guys. If I see this kind of thing happening again, I'll bring back the "you can literally only talk in the scum QT and I will modkill if you do otherwise" rule, and nobody liked that. 3. Overall, I think we all know that the game revolved around the 2 Witch Hunter lynches. The strategy that came into play, involving voting and stuff like that-- I don't think this is actually a problem. Typically a Witch Hunter or someone SHOULD be alive for most of the game, this is only a strategy town can use when they're pretty ahead, and are very sure they're about to lynch the last Witch Hunter. This problem might be solved by getting rid of the Witch Hunters and making the 2 Silver Bullets a factional power (that still needs to be delivered individually), but honestly it has only come up once, and if town lynches 2 Witch Hunters in the first two days it's basically game over anyways. 4. Yamato Tracked Bill Murray, who delivered 2 Night Actions during N1, and that only ever happens if Bill Murray is scum. This kind of thing should be fairly rare, but I will be amending the Rodent Familiar role to only tell who the FIRST person someone visits is. So in this case, since Silver Bullet resolves before anything else, he'd have seen the failed attack on WBG. Overall, many people played well this game, but I feel let down by the way you guys treated each other. I know each of you individually is capable of playing together well, especially the scumteam, and I look forward to great games from everyone here in the future. 2. I will react like that everytime I'm out of a TEAM communication, especially when they are the FIRST TWO LYNCHES OF THE GAME. I will NEVER tolerate letting people that aren't playing well to decide all actions and not even ask my opinion. 3. I just think that something that permits a game to be solved only by mechanics, when Mafia is a game of argumentation, is broken. Just try to get on my perspective once. I put a considerable amount of "good" play, but my team mates doesn't, they die but I live and people are townreading me YAY! Oh wait, they can figure out I'm Mafia in two days, no matter what I do. It completely disregards my play, and it felt very unfair to me. Hmm, that's a fair point. Maybe factionalizing the Silver Bullets is the way to go, then. This could work
Yeah I'll give it a try with that next time I run the setup, probably.
|
|
|
On June 16 2015 13:03 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2015 12:43 GlowingBear wrote:On June 16 2015 10:58 Blazinghand wrote:On June 16 2015 10:49 GlowingBear wrote:On June 16 2015 06:31 Blazinghand wrote:OK so overall here's where I'm at. 1. I think there were some serious behavior issues this game, a non-trivial amount of which stemmed from WBG, but some of which was directed at him as well. No matter what, we can agree WBG was the center of a minor shitstorm starting from partway through D1 and basically continuing in one form or another until the Final Warning that I gave the thread. WBG and I have a lot in common as players, since he and I are literally the same person, so I understand how people can react to his play. He can be caustic and aggressive, and this caused people to get mad at him, which caused him to be mad at other people, and things spiralled out of control. I think I did a good job of calming people down, but in general I'd like to think the town itself did a good job of eventually calming down. Let's do our best to be friendly in the future. 2. There was a lot of anger and confusion going on with the scumteam. It seems some scum were communicating with each other separately via skype, and boxing one guy out, then one of them died, then they started like, trying to PM me and argue over who had the right to choose what KP was submitted. All in all, I am really disappointed in everyone involved in the scumteam. You guys were immature and childish. I used to be much more aggressive with requiring scum to only communicate via QT, but I eventually became more chill about it because I thought people could be mature. You guys getting into some huge dick-measure contest and submitting bad night actions and not communicating was NOT what this game needed, and honestly, I expected better of you. We're all adults here, guys. If I see this kind of thing happening again, I'll bring back the "you can literally only talk in the scum QT and I will modkill if you do otherwise" rule, and nobody liked that. 3. Overall, I think we all know that the game revolved around the 2 Witch Hunter lynches. The strategy that came into play, involving voting and stuff like that-- I don't think this is actually a problem. Typically a Witch Hunter or someone SHOULD be alive for most of the game, this is only a strategy town can use when they're pretty ahead, and are very sure they're about to lynch the last Witch Hunter. This problem might be solved by getting rid of the Witch Hunters and making the 2 Silver Bullets a factional power (that still needs to be delivered individually), but honestly it has only come up once, and if town lynches 2 Witch Hunters in the first two days it's basically game over anyways. 4. Yamato Tracked Bill Murray, who delivered 2 Night Actions during N1, and that only ever happens if Bill Murray is scum. This kind of thing should be fairly rare, but I will be amending the Rodent Familiar role to only tell who the FIRST person someone visits is. So in this case, since Silver Bullet resolves before anything else, he'd have seen the failed attack on WBG. Overall, many people played well this game, but I feel let down by the way you guys treated each other. I know each of you individually is capable of playing together well, especially the scumteam, and I look forward to great games from everyone here in the future. 2. I will react like that everytime I'm out of a TEAM communication, especially when they are the FIRST TWO LYNCHES OF THE GAME. I will NEVER tolerate letting people that aren't playing well to decide all actions and not even ask my opinion. 3. I just think that something that permits a game to be solved only by mechanics, when Mafia is a game of argumentation, is broken. Just try to get on my perspective once. I put a considerable amount of "good" play, but my team mates doesn't, they die but I live and people are townreading me YAY! Oh wait, they can figure out I'm Mafia in two days, no matter what I do. It completely disregards my play, and it felt very unfair to me. Hmm, that's a fair point. Maybe factionalizing the Silver Bullets is the way to go, then. This could work Yeah I'll give it a try with that next time I run the setup, probably.
no don't.
the setup is perfectly fine.
just because one team played like shit does not mean you are supposed to change the balance of the game...
|
Once there is 1 mafia left the game can be solved in logarithmic time using the vote rigging we did.
O(log n) < O(n)
The game is not winable for mafia at that point.
|
On June 18 2015 06:32 raynpelikoneet wrote:
rofl GB.
?
|
On June 18 2015 06:43 batsnacks wrote:
Once there is 1 mafia left the game can be solved in logarithmic time using the vote rigging we did.
O(log n) < O(n)
The game is not winable for mafia at that point.
This
It makes solving the game purely mechanical, with no rethoric needed.
The thing is that the factional silver bullets doesn't attack the problem directly, which is Mafia not being able to vote
|
On June 18 2015 06:50 GlowingBear wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 06:43 batsnacks wrote:
Once there is 1 mafia left the game can be solved in logarithmic time using the vote rigging we did.
O(log n) < O(n)
The game is not winable for mafia at that point. This It makes solving the game purely mechanical, with no rethoric needed. The thing is that the factional silver bullets doesn't attack the problem directly, which is Mafia not being able to vote
Allowing all mafias to vote seems very strong for mafia. Just allowing the GF to vote is also a solution, and it makes sense from a lore perspective since the GF returns green to checks anyway.
***edit, if only the GF can vote, it also adds incentive for 1 witchhunter to hold their shot in the event they are the last mafia alive and need to delay vote rigging. nvm this is dumb and only works if there is exactly 1 witchhunter alive exactly 1 day from lylo.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
the "priest can cast a vote" solution actually isn't so bad. remember, this is a problem that only happens if all silver bullets are used up, and town can only be sure of this (short of there being two clear silver bullet uses, in which case town is probably losing) if both witch hunters are dead. I'll think about it
|
On June 18 2015 07:32 Blazinghand wrote:
the "priest can cast a vote" solution actually isn't so bad. remember, this is a problem that only happens if all silver bullets are used up, and town can only be sure of this (short of there being two clear silver bullet uses, in which case town is probably losing) if both witch hunters are dead. I'll think about it
I have a suggestion:
What do you think of keeping the silver bullets not-factional but giving scum a factional 1 vote?
|
On June 18 2015 07:32 Blazinghand wrote:
the "priest can cast a vote" solution actually isn't so bad. remember, this is a problem that only happens if all silver bullets are used up, and town can only be sure of this (short of there being two clear silver bullet uses, in which case town is probably losing) if both witch hunters are dead. I'll think about it
Thinking about it, I don't really know if that's an adequate solution. If there is ever exactly 1 witchhunter left mafia still can't win unless the very next day is lylo. Town can always solve the game faster than mafia can kill.
A more robust solution would be that the priest can vote AND if a witchhunter is ever the last mafia alive they are promoted to a priest. This would completely invalidate the lame strategy.
***becoming a GF when there is exactly 1 mafia left is not an advantage for mafia since town can check the priest via blaspheme to begin with.
|
On June 18 2015 08:50 batsnacks wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 07:32 Blazinghand wrote:
the "priest can cast a vote" solution actually isn't so bad. remember, this is a problem that only happens if all silver bullets are used up, and town can only be sure of this (short of there being two clear silver bullet uses, in which case town is probably losing) if both witch hunters are dead. I'll think about it Thinking about it, I don't really know if that's an adequate solution. If there is ever exactly 1 witchhunter left mafia still can't win unless the very next day is lylo. Town can always solve the game faster than mafia can kill. A more robust solution would be that the priest can vote AND if a witchhunter is ever the last mafia alive they are promoted to a priest. This would completely invalidate the lame strategy. ***becoming a GF when there is exactly 1 mafia left is not an advantage for mafia since town can check the priest via blaspheme to begin with.
On June 18 2015 08:34 GlowingBear wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 07:32 Blazinghand wrote:
the "priest can cast a vote" solution actually isn't so bad. remember, this is a problem that only happens if all silver bullets are used up, and town can only be sure of this (short of there being two clear silver bullet uses, in which case town is probably losing) if both witch hunters are dead. I'll think about it I have a suggestion: What do you think of keeping the silver bullets not-factional but giving scum a factional 1 vote?
Pretty much this.
DOUBLE POST MEANT TO EDIT DEAL WITH IT
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
Yeah, I don't think town would do it if there's any number of silver bullets left because moving up LYLO by a day generally isn't worth it. I don't like scum voting in witchcraft elections. I'm tempted to just leave it as-is; this wasn't a problem before and I don't really anticipate it being a problem next time. Honestly scum played as badly as it was like, legally possible to play this game.
|
Well, it's your game, of course you decide what the set up is
I'm just trying to find a solution for what I think is a flaw in it (it's a good setup; it can get perfect)
I see a rethorical game being solved solely by mechanics.
It means that it didn't matter how my rethorics was good (I was universally townread), I will lose the game because it doesn't promote discussion over mechanics at a specific breakpoint.
I don't think this is a fair punishment for someone who had a fair possibility of carrying
Anyway, there's that. I would play again regardless of setup
|
This setup is really cool imo the blue voting is nice and fresh. I feel like if this setup is played 9999999999999 times though a significant number of those games will end the way this one did, with town rigging the votes and with a mafia carry being mechanically impossible.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On June 18 2015 09:29 GlowingBear wrote:
Well, it's your game, of course you decide what the set up is
I'm just trying to find a solution for what I think is a flaw in it (it's a good setup; it can get perfect)
I see a rethorical game being solved solely by mechanics.
It means that it didn't matter how my rethorics was good (I was universally townread), I will lose the game because it doesn't promote discussion over mechanics at a specific breakpoint.
I don't think this is a fair punishment for someone who had a fair possibility of carrying
Anyway, there's that. I would play again regardless of setup
This is also true of, say, any setup with a Cop though. Imagine it's 7-1 LYLO-3 and a cop claims a red-check on you. You could CC, sure, but even if the cop gets lynched first, you still lose.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On June 18 2015 09:43 batsnacks wrote:
This setup is really cool imo the blue voting is nice and fresh. I feel like if this setup is played 9999999999999 times though a significant number of those games will end the way this one did, with town rigging the votes and with a mafia carry being mechanically impossible.
It's been played 3 times, and this only happened once, and only because mafia honestly played really really badly
|
On June 18 2015 09:44 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 09:29 GlowingBear wrote:
Well, it's your game, of course you decide what the set up is
I'm just trying to find a solution for what I think is a flaw in it (it's a good setup; it can get perfect)
I see a rethorical game being solved solely by mechanics.
It means that it didn't matter how my rethorics was good (I was universally townread), I will lose the game because it doesn't promote discussion over mechanics at a specific breakpoint.
I don't think this is a fair punishment for someone who had a fair possibility of carrying
Anyway, there's that. I would play again regardless of setup This is also true of, say, any setup with a Cop though. Imagine it's 7-1 LYLO-3 and a cop claims a red-check on you. You could CC, sure, but even if the cop gets lynched first, you still lose.
A cop can not solve the game in logarithmic time, they can at best keep up with mafia in linear time.
|
Blazinghand
United States25562 Posts
On June 18 2015 09:45 batsnacks wrote:Show nested quote +On June 18 2015 09:44 Blazinghand wrote:On June 18 2015 09:29 GlowingBear wrote:
Well, it's your game, of course you decide what the set up is
I'm just trying to find a solution for what I think is a flaw in it (it's a good setup; it can get perfect)
I see a rethorical game being solved solely by mechanics.
It means that it didn't matter how my rethorics was good (I was universally townread), I will lose the game because it doesn't promote discussion over mechanics at a specific breakpoint.
I don't think this is a fair punishment for someone who had a fair possibility of carrying
Anyway, there's that. I would play again regardless of setup This is also true of, say, any setup with a Cop though. Imagine it's 7-1 LYLO-3 and a cop claims a red-check on you. You could CC, sure, but even if the cop gets lynched first, you still lose. A cop can not solve the game in logarithmic time, they can at best keep up with mafia in linear time.
uh, what
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
