Mafia VII - GG - Page 67

On May 08 2009 11:44 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:


I think it's kind of like the prisoner's dilemma.

If Mafia A and B both know that only 1 family can win, an additional goal is finding the list of the other family (doesn't seem to be too hard). So A and B know each other's members, what do they do?

Say A chooses to snipe off B. This ensures that A will be the winning mafia team, but it also increases chance of victory for the town and provides clues. Thus this move is extremely risky early on and probably ensures town victory, barring the added variable of the CK. However, as the game progresses, one could expect that such an "all kill" is more likely.

In this situation, B has 2 options: die, or also snipe off A in a mirror betrayal. The latter is the lose-lose situation. The former is also not as desirable as mutual cooperation.

if both A and B choose to cooperate, this significantly increases the chance of a mafia family winning rather than the town. In the short term, this strategy is probably optimal: an uneasy truce. If the mafia knows that they can do this and the game will just end once town dies (see: this game) there's little reason for them to play differently, other than just for lols and for bragging rights.

I think this makes sense.

On May 08 2009 11:40 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
They had roleclaimed fully to eachother right after bockits death.

HAD at that point i said, sorry you have to kill eachother. We would have two dead mafia families and a town winning who deff did not earn it.

the biggest issue in this game was mainly inactivity and people auto claiming to friends. This leads to huge issues as a host balance wise :p.

On May 08 2009 11:49 So no fek wrote:
Originally, I had discussed it with Qatol. Asking him what we would do if we had to kill each other off in the end. And he was like "Don't worry, I know their entire list, and they only know me." Then we pretty much introduced ourselves right off.

On May 08 2009 11:48 LTT wrote:


Not quite. The way that the members and killpower was set up, it was nearly impossible for one side to take the other out in a single night. This meant leaving survivors who could then just out the entire other mafia team. Mafia fighting each other was more mutually assured destruction than the prisoner's dilemma.

On May 08 2009 11:51 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:

So basically you had to change the rules or mafia was going to lose lol. That made no sense having 2 mafias on the same team so confusing. How did they find each other out and claim?

On May 08 2009 11:48 LTT wrote:
Not quite. The way that the members and killpower was set up, it was nearly impossible for one side to take the other out in a single night. This meant leaving survivors who could then just out the entire other mafia team. Mafia fighting each other was more mutually assured destruction than the prisoner's dilemma.

On May 08 2009 11:49 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
Part of the issue is, most vets here are efriends now. No one wants to fuck over their buddies. I mean if your red you have to kill green, but red vs red vs greens, friends are less likely to fuck eachother over, and that is kinda where the situation was this game. And with such a low mafia count this game, i would have to either increase mafia size, add more ck's or lots of vigis and millers.

On May 08 2009 11:44 Fishball wrote:


Absolutely. I've already brought up this argument on page 51
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=91680&currentpage=51

I've also discussed this topic on MSN with BC.

Bottom line, Mafia parties can work together, but not win together.
Who the hell would join a FFA Starcraft match, when you know you opponents would just gang up on you then ally end?

On May 08 2009 11:49 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
Part of the issue is, most vets here are efriends now. No one wants to fuck over their buddies.

On May 08 2009 12:00 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
shows your not m uch of a friend

On May 08 2009 11:56 BloodyC0bbler wrote:
I will say, one idea that was mentioned to me (i forget by who) during the game to combat inactivity.

people who don't vote period (not abstainers) count against total vote talleys, so late game they can no longer lynch people. This works in the interest of killing inactives as well as heavily clue suspected people early, which stops mafia from hiding in the inactive lists, and hopefully stops people from signing up and not playing.

On May 08 2009 11:58 Qatol wrote:

If you read the mafia role, you will see that it says nothing about us killing other mafia. Besides, its totally infeasible when you consider our numbers. We HAD to unite. If we hadn't, we would have lost badly.

On May 08 2009 12:05 Fishball wrote:


I know, I never mentioned it was an original rule.

It just HAS to be done this way, or else, the game itself would be pointless.
When BC told me, "One of the Mafia families would just forfeit.", "Town has no chance, etc.", I said it doesn't matter, even if town is totally wiped out.

Even if it is just "symbolic" for the two families to kill each other, the game has to be carried out till the end, or else all would deem pointless.

This is also why I said on page 51, the town should not be able to throw the game.

On May 08 2009 12:05 Fishball wrote:


I know, I never mentioned it was an original rule.

It just HAS to be done this way, or else, the game itself would be pointless.
When BC told me, "One of the Mafia families would just forfeit.", "Town has no chance, etc.", I said it doesn't matter, even if town is totally wiped out.

Even if it is just "symbolic" for the two families to kill each other, the game has to be carried out till the end, or else all would deem pointless.

This is also why I said on page 51, the town should not be able to throw the game.

On May 08 2009 12:10 Qatol wrote:

I just saw the multiple families as a way to make the mafia weaker early on. Mentioning to the town that we did not have to kill each other would have been nice, but we obviously weren't going to reveal that. You guys were depending on it and it actually turned hitting Bockit into the best hit of the game for us.